Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Operational Fleet

Mr. Atkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number and types of ships that have been or will be transferred from the operational Fleet to the reserve during 1958, and the number and types of new construction that have been or will be added to the operational Fleet during the same period.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): As forecast in the Explanatory statement which relates to the financial year 1958–59, there will be a net reduction of two cruisers, three destroyers and two submarines and an increase of four frigates in the operational Fleet. In the same period 1 new cruiser, 5 new frigates and 4 new submarines have, or will have, been commissioned.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is considerable disquiet about this continuing decrease in the size of the operational Fleet? Does not he agree that it is already dangerously small and that this running-down policy ought to be reversed?

Mr. Allan: Of course we have to build the Fleet which our resources permit and it is our policy to build the best ships within those resources. I think that all hon. Members will agree that our modern ships are not bettered by any other navy.

Mr. Dugdale: While realising that it is not possible to spend vast sums of money on building new ships, may I ask whether that is a reason for disposing of a large number of old ships?

Mr. Allan: The old ships we are disposing of are almost entirely of war-time

or pre-war construction and the cost of bringing those ships up to the standard required by modern navies is out of all proportion to their value.

Headquarters Staff (Officers)

Mr. Atkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of officers serving on the headquarters staff; and the numbers of these employed on technical and administrative duties, respectively.

Mr. R. Allan: The number of uniformed officers serving on the headquarters staff on 1st October last was 729. It is virtually impossible to give an accurate breakdown because technical officers usually have some administrative duties and vice versa; but roughly two-thirds of these officers are employed on duties which are primarily technical and one-third on duties which are primarily administrative.

Mr. Atkins: Can my hon. Friend say whether the recommendations of the Nihill Committee about headquarters staff have been put into effect and what results they are having, or will have?

Mr. Allan: Yes, the Nihill Committee recommendations are being put into effect now. We hope that when they are fully in operation there will be considerable reductions in the administrative staff.

Mr. Bence: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea of how many years it will be before we have more admirals than ships?

Mr. Allan: That will be a very long time.

Sir P. Agnew: Can my hon. Friend say how these figures compare with the figures immediately pre-war, having regard to the fragmentary size of the Navy now compared with what it was before the war?

Mr. Allan: I am afraid I could not without notice.

Ratings (Applications for Discharge)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many applications for discharge were received from all ratings under the age of 21 for 1957 and 1958. respectively; how many were permitted to purchase


their discharge; how many were allowed a free compassionate discharge; and how many applications were refused.

Mr. R. Allan: Our records do not distinguish applicants under 21 years of age from those of 21 or over. In 1957, however, 32 juniors in the early stages of their training applied for discharge. Twenty-three of these applications were approved, of which 8 were free discharges. Nine applications were refused. In 1958 to the end of September there were 18 applications. Fifteen were approved, including 8 free discharges. Three were refused.

Mr. Yates: While I appreciate that Answer, may I ask whether the Minister appreciates that there is considerable feeling among many in the Navy who have never been allowed to have their appeals considered?

Mr. Allan: No. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong. Their appeals are always considered. The hon. Member's Question refers to juniors or to those under the age of 21. The appeals of those over 21 years of age are always considered and the refusals are fairly small in number.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many applications for discharge received from all ratings under the age of 21 years are at present outstanding; the present method of reviewing such applications; and whether he will consider modifying the present procedure to meet the particular needs of young boys who may wish to change their minds.

Mr. R. Allan: At the moment there are two applications from juniors under consideration in the Admiralty. I am not able to say whether or not there are others in the process of transmission. These applications are passed from the Commanding Officer to the Commander-in-Chief, who can either approve the application or pass it to the Admiralty.
Though we are always prepared to modify or improve our methods the figures I have just given the hon. Gentleman indicate that the present procedure meets the difficulties of most juniors who are slow to settle down to naval life.

Mr. Yates: If every case had to take as long as a case from my constituency, of

which the Minister is well aware, it would be very discouraging for juniors even to apply. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that a more representative body or tribunal should sit to consider these applications, especially as I understand that the Grigg Committee was recently informed that there was considerable feeling in the Navy about these questions?

Mr. Allan: I do not think it is necessary, because the figures I have given show that the position is fairly satisfactory. In the case in which the hon. Member took great interest, there were special circumstances which caused the delay. In 1954, however, it was decided that for boys in the junior training establishments—those in whom the hon. Member is mostly interested—the term "compassionate grounds" was to be interpreted broadly and to be extended to include juniors who were clearly unhappy in the career they had chosen or which had been chosen for them.

Dr. Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will ease the terms and conditions of purchase of discharge from the Royal Navy.

Mr. R. Allan: As my hon. Friend knows, the number of men who can be allowed to buy their discharge depends on the overall manpower position. As this improves, it should be possible to increase the proportion of discharges by purchase. The position is now, and will continue to be reviewed quarterly.

Dr. Bennett: As some of the applicants for such discharges will inevitably come from the Gosport area, may I ask my hon. Friend, first, how many applications are still outstanding; secondly, at what annual rate the purchase of discharges is being permitted; and, finally, what prospects there are of a sufficient improvement in the manpower position to permit some adjustment in the near future?

Mr. Allan: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there are 256 applications outstanding. The present target for this year is to release about 1,400 personnel by discharge. Therefore, in answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that the position will very soon right itself.

Devonport Dockyard

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what changes he is proposing to make in regard to the workshops in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport; and how many men will be affected, or considered redundant, as a result of the changes.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The only changes in workshop areas at present planned are the closure of the laundry in order to provide for expansion of the coppersmiths' shop, and the transfer of torpedo work to the Royal William Yard. Neither of these will involve any redundancy. Further changes in the use of workshops in the future are likely to take place in order to ensure adequate facilities for the Fleet, but it is not expected that they will result in any redundancy.

Miss Vickers: Will my hon. Friend give due notice concerning these changes? It is very unsettling when it is rumoured that changes are to take place when details are not known, in view of the real fears of unemployment. Will he see that some of these workshops are now modernised, since the first Nihill Committee stated that many of them were over 100 years old and needed bringing up to standard?

Mr. Galbraith: The trade unions were consulted and informed beforehand.

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the standards of the canteens in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, are up to the standards required by the Factories Acts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: No provision is made under the Factories Acts for canteen standards—but of the 9 canteens in Devonport Dockyard, 3 have been built or modernised in recent years. If my hon. Friend has details of any complaints about the remainder and will write to me, I will gladly investigate them.

Miss Vickers: Was my hon. Friend's attention drawn to a statement in the Press which said that the Leader of the Opposition, when visiting the dockyard, had to sit at one of the tables, push aside a bag of sugar and make room for his

half pint of tea, served in a cracked mug? Does my hon. Friend regard this as a good standard for Admiralty dockyard workers who have to eat there every day?

Mr. Galbraith: The Leader of the Opposition probably has more important matters to worry him than the state of the teacups that he may have met with.

Dockyards (Shipwrights)

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many shipwright dilutees have been dismissed from Her Majesty's dockyards; how many have been employed in other jobs by the Admiralty; and how many Royal Navy shipwrights and shipwrights from private yards have been taken on the strength.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Forty-nine dilutee shipwrights have been discharged from the Royal Dockyards since 1st January this year. During this period 141 dilutee shipwrights have been reverted and re-employed in other jobs, while 87 ex-naval shipwrights and 62 shipwrights from private yards have been entered.

Miss Vickers: Does not my hon. Friend consider it very undesirable to have this grade of shipwright dilutees? It is very difficult for the men. They achieve a certain standard and those who have been reverted are now getting at least £4 or £5 a week less. Cannot my hon. Friend consult the trade unions and ensure that this does not happen in future?

Mr. Galbraith: I have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view and that of her constituents, but the agreement which allowed dilutees to be employed in the first instance provided for their discharge or reversion whenever time-served craftsmen became available. The Admiralty is bound by that agreement.

Mr. W. Edwards: Has this procedure received the consent and agreement of the trade union section of the Admiralty Industrial Council?

Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of of that question.

Coal Supplies

Mr. Gower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) in what foreign countries orders have


been placed for supplies of coal for use by the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what considerations led to recent orders being placed for supplies of coal from Poland for use by the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Allan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave last Wednesday to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Gower: While I appreciate the desirability of increasing East-West trade, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he deems this policy appropriate at this particular time in view of the position of our own coal industry? Is it a fact that the local contractors have offered coal supplied by shippers from South Wales of the type which has been used in Malta in the past?

Mr. Allan: Yes, Sir; but it is different coal. This was a purchase of large coal which at the time the contract was negotiated was not in surplus in this country. In addition, the Polish coal was nearly £4 cheaper than what was offered here, and the Admiralty has a duty to buy coal as cheaply as it can.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In deciding that Polish coal was cheaper, was the reason fully inquired into? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Polish coal is subsidised? Are we to understand, therefore, that the Government will take advantage of cheap coal which is subsidised in competition with coal produced by our own miners, who are now being put on the road? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that hundreds of miners in my constituency are facing unemployment for the first time for twenty years? The Government, however, are now buying cheap Polish coal and displacing our own miners.

Mr. Allan: The point is that the kind of coal we bought was not in surplus in this country.

Mr. Griffiths: The situation may now have changed. Are we to understand that the Admiralty is reconsidering the whole matter? Will the hon. Gentleman bear is mind that it creates a very bad impression among people who have given their lives to the country when the Government buy subsidised coal from Poland in preference to our own coal?

Mr. Allan: This was a tiny shipment of 3,800 tons out of a total requirement of the Admiralty of 260,000 tons. We will not buy more coal from Poland without further consultations with the Ministry of Power.

Mr. G. R. Howard: What is the procedure for the purchase of coal stocks in Gibraltar and Hong Kong?

Mr. Allan: In Gibraltar and Hong Kong, we buy from local contractors. We do not specify the source of origin of the coal. We buy the coal that is available and meets our requirements.

Mr. G. Thomas: Are we now to understand that the Admiralty will no longer buy this subsidised coal from Poland. or is the custom to continue? This is a matter of first importance to every one of us from the mining areas.

Mr. Allan: We shall certainly not buy any more of this coal without first consulting the Ministry of Power, as we did for this shipment.

Nuclear-Propelled Warships

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many nuclear-powered warships are expected to be in commission in the Royal Navy in 1961, 1962 and 1963; and how these numbers compare with the estimated numbers of similar warships in the United States Navy and the Soviet Navy.

Mr. R. Allan: It would not be in the public interest to give details of our plans for bringing nuclear-propelled warships into service. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Wall: Does not my hon. Friend agree, without giving away secrets, that, from the information available to the general public, it would seem that the number is not likely to be more than two? Further, will he agree that the very heavy programme of scrapping quite useful battleships can be justified only by an adequate replacement programme, and that the existing programme indicates that it will give us a very small Fleet in the early 'sixties?

Mr. Allan: It may be a very small Fleet, but it will be a very good one.

Mr. Steele: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if, in fact, it is hoped to commence


building, within the years mentioned, a nuclear-powered submarine capable of taking Polaris?

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman knows, as I told him recently in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that we are going ahead with the purchase of nuclear machinery for our own Dreadnought submarine. As Polaris has not yet been fully proven or tried out in the United States, it is difficult to say what adjustments will be necessary to submarine hulls, but, certainly, some would be necessary, as otherwise our Dreadnought hull would not be able to take Polaris.

Ships (Surface and Anti-Aircraft Missiles)

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many warships armed with surface or antiaircraft missiles are expected to be in commission in the Royal Navy in 1961, 1962 and 1963; and how these numbers compare with the estimated numbers of similarly armed warships in the United States Navy and the Soviet Navy.

Mr. R. Allan: A considerable number of Her Majesty's ships will be so equipped by the early 1960's. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, realise the reasons why I cannot be more specific. In the circumstances, it is difficult to make the comparison asked for in the second part of the Question, but we are keeping our end up quite well.

Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend agree, again without giving away any secrets, that from the point of view of new construction there will be only three Hampshires and, possibly, three Tigers? Will he also undertake to study Sir Arthur Bryant's article in the Sunday Times, and realise that there is great anxiety in the country as to the future size and effectiveness of the Royal Navy?

Mr. Allan: I have read that article, and I quite appreciate the feeling of anxiety there is.

Mr. G. Brown: There has been an announcement by N.A.T.O. that a firm called Bristol Aerojet has been authorised to make Polaris and the solid fuel propellant here. Is that with the authority of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Allan: That is not a question for me to answer.

Mr. Paget: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is within the public interest for the American Government to give their people all this information as to their future production programme, when it is not within the safety of our Government? What is the difference here?

Mr. Allan: This is quite a different question.

Mr. Paget: All this information about the American programme is known.

Mr. Allan: But not about their future programme.

Mr. Speaker: In any case, the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for what information the American Government give.

Officers and Ratings (Seagoing Ships)

Mr. Atkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the officers and ratings in the Royal Navy are, at the latest convenient date, appointed to a seagoing ship of the operational Fleet.

Mr. R. Allan: In June, 1958, the proportion of officers and ratings appointed to a seagoing ship of the operational Fleet was 46 per cent. Those serving afloat under training have been excluded from these calculations.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend consider it possible to keep the Royal Navy at maximum efficiency with less than half the personnel serving with the Fleet; and does he expect this proportion to go up or down?

Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend will remember that last week I told him that seamen officers and ratings expect to spend 60 per cent. of their time afloat in the seagoing fleet. The lower percentage that I had to give him today takes into account all the various technical branches who, naturally, spend less of their time at sea. We are, of course, doing everything we can to increase sea time for officers and men, and the proportion should increase.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, ten years ago, 57 per cent. were at sea, whereas today, apparently, the percentage is very much smaller? Does he think it right that there should


be more and more men shore-based and less and less at sea? Is this the right kind of progress for the Royal Navy?

Mr. Allan: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that. The figure of 57 per cent. again was the seaman figure, and I would say that, at the moment, it has gone up; it is 60 per cent. I was answering today about the overall figure, which includes all the technical branches, and that is 46 per cent.

Aircraft Pilots

Mr. Cronin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of flag officers in the Royal Navy have been qualified aircraft pilots.

Mr. R. Allan: Of the seaman flag officers, one in twelve is qualified as a naval pilot. This figure excludes qualified observers and those who hold "A" licences for civil aircraft flying.

Mr. Cronin: As the air is now the principal medium of naval warfare, is not it desirable that there should be a higher proportion?

Mr. Allan: Our flag officers with air qualifications do serve in key positions in the Admiralty. The Vice-Chief of Naval Staff at the moment and the Director of Operations Division are airmen. There is no question of easing airmen out; they are given important and key posts in the whole of our Navy.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the present captains of aircraft carriers have been qualified aircraft pilots.

Mr. R. Allan: We have five aircraft carriers in commission at the moment. The captain of one is a naval pilot; the captain of another has observer qualifications.

Mr. Cronin: As the captain of an aircraft carrier is the person responsible for ordering pilots to take off and land—

Sir T. Moore: Wrong again. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Mr. Cronin: —is not it desirable that a greater proportion should have some experience themselves of taking off and landing? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the United States Navy, all cap

tains of aircraft carriers are expected to be seamen and fliers as well?

Mr. Allan: I do not know that it is necessarily desirable. The captain is appointed in command of the ship. The commander (air) is responsible to the captain for all flying operations and for the officers, men and material in the air department of the ship. We in the Navy regard the aircraft as a weapon like any other weapon. The hon. Gentleman would not expect the captain of a ship whose main armament was the gun to be a gunnery specialist or the captain of a ship whose main duties were antisubmarine to be an anti-submarine specialist. He is in command of the ship.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is not it a fact that the proposal underlying this question is directly contrary to the recommendations of the officer committee of 1954, and that the American practice, which has its origins in history, has had very serious disadvantages, from the American Navy's point of view, in the operation of its fleet?

Mr. Allan: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Stornoway Airport

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decisions have been taken regarding the extension of Stornoway Airport; the purpose of this work; and its estimated cost.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: No decisions have been taken; the airport is being surveyed to see whether it is suitable for development as a N.A.T.O. airfield. No estimate for costs can be given at this stage.

Mr. MacMillan: While we almost welcome a project of this kind for the employment it would create temporarily, with 32 per cent. unemployed and no other solution to the problem in the area, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will keep a personal, intimate eye upon the project so that we do not have a repetition of what happened with the rocket range project in South Uist, which was a bungle from beginning to end? Will he keep a personal eye on this project?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

Aircraft Carriers (Specification)

Mr. W. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the specification for the next class of aircraft carrier includes the requirement to operate vertical take-off and landing.

Mr. R. Allan: I am afraid that I cannot disclose details of the Admiralty's plans for future aircraft carriers. I can say, however, that the development and possibilities of vertical take-off and landing are kept very much in mind.

H.M.S. "Victorious" (Aircraft Accident)

Mr. Steele: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what inquiries he has made about the cause of the recent accident when a Scimiter jet aircraft crashed over the side of H.M.S. "Victorious"; and why the information given in the official Admiralty statement, following the inquest, was not made available earlier.

Mr. R. Allan: A Board of Inquiry which was set up to investigate this accident established that the arrester wire broke because a small valve was accidentally left open when the arrester system was charged with hydraulic fluid during the ship's refit. In accordance with normal practice, the coroner was shown the findings of the Board of Inquiry. Owing to a misunderstanding, he thought that the cause of the breaking of the wire as shown in these findings was secret. In fact, the Admiralty would, at any time, have produced a witness to give the cause in court, if it had been asked to do so. The matter has now been cleared up to the satisfaction of the coroner.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing again to the widow and relatives of this gallant officer the deep sympathy of the Board of Admiralty in their tragic loss.

Mr. Steele: I appreciate the latter remarks of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, with which the whole House would agree, but surely some explanation is necessary of the extraordinary behaviour of the Admiralty in this matter. Is not it a fact that the misunderstanding must have been created by the impression given by the Admiralty to the coroner before the inquest? Did

not this statement made after the inquest make the coroner feel, as he said, that he had been bamboozled by the Admiralty?

Mr. Allan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in trying to find trouble here. It was a genuine misunderstanding. The coroner thought that he could not disclose what was in the findings and that they were secret. In fact, we would have made this information available through the ordinary processes of the court, had we been asked. Of course, we could not have issued any statement before the inquest.

Dr. Bennett: Has my hon. Friend any information he can give the House about how it was that the pilot was unable to get out of the aircraft?

Mr. Allan: It is not possible to answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question very briefly, but perhaps the House will forgive me if, in all the tragic circumstances of this case and the publicity which attended it, I do try to answer.
There was nothing wrong with the ejector system in the aircraft. It could have been used; indeed, it could have been used even after the aircraft had been submerged, for a few seconds at any rate. It is clear, however, that Commander Russell never intended to eject at all. He had removed his helmet and oxygen mask and was trying to get out in the normal manner. To do this, of course, he had to open the hood. He could have done this electrically, but, the circuits being under water, the mechanism would not operate. An alternative method was to blow the hood off by an explosive charge. This is done by pulling a handle. This handle must be pulled vertically; if there is any backward pull, the mechanism becomes fouled. This appears to have happened in this case. I may say that steps are being taken to correct this.
In the circumstances, Commander Russell had to try to open the hood manually. Despite the angle of the aircraft, he managed to do this, but, unfortunately, he had not undone either his dinghy lanyard or the leg restraint straps which are intended to hold the pilot in his seat in the event of ejection. It appears that he had insufficient time or, perhaps, strength to undo the lanyard and the straps before the aircraft sank.

N.A.T.O. Installations (Ayrshire Coast)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what buildings, roadways, jetties and other works are to be built on the Ayrshire coast as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation naval defence installations; and at what cost.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: These works will consist of a depôt for the antisubmarine boom which is to be laid in the Clyde. They will involve the reclamation of 4½ acres of land; the construction of an office block, workshop and stores; about 20,000 square yards of roads and paved areas; 2,500 yards of rail track, mostly sidings; shallow water barricades and a T-shaped jetty with a head 200 yards long connected to the shore by a 300 yards stem. The cost will be about £800,000.

Mr. Hughes: Does this mean that the Admiralty is now preparing to fight the last war? Has the Minister heard that the Russians have now rockets which will carry hydrogen bombs 8,000 miles? Is he aware that these buildings are almost adjacent to the nuclear power station, and can he tell us how these arrangements will save the nuclear power station from attack by rocket?

Mr. Galbraith: The object of this installation has nothing to do with the nuclear power station. It is to protect the merchant fleets of the Allied Powers.

Mr, G. Brown: Can the Civil Lord say when this work will start and whether it is being financed by us or by N.A.T.O. under the infrastructure arrangements?

Mr. Galbraith: It is being financed under the normal N.A.T.O. arrangements. Various firms have been asked to tender, but no firm contract has yet been entered into.

Service Gratuities (Mr. C. P. Q. Beck)

Mr. Gower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will reconsider the case of Mr. C. P. Q. Beck, of 13, Westfield Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, who served in the Royal Navy from November, 1928, to November, 1945, became a chief petty officer in June, 1941, received a medal for long and good service, and did not receive, on the termination of his service, the gratuity granted to

chief petty officers who took temporary commissions during the last war.

Mr. R. Allan: No, Sir. The regulations under which Mr. Beck was released in November, 1945, did not provide for a Service gratuity, and of this he was well aware.
Certain ratings were specially selected for commissions during the war. It was thought inappropriate that they should return to the lower deck in order to complete their time for pension. They were. therefore, given gratuities in lieu. Mr. Beck was not selected for a commission.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that many of the chief petty officers who took temporary commissions served on the aggregate shorter terms than Mr. Beck, and as the number of people in Mr. Beck's category appears to be reasonably small, will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Allan: I do not think that there is any point in looking at it again. At the end of the war, Mr. Beck could have served for an extra five years to qualify for pension, but he chose not to.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Wear Shipbuilders

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the tonnage of vessels ordered from Wear shipbuilders and the tonnage of orders with such shipbuilders cancelled this year.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: New licences issued to Wear shipbuilders during the first nine months of 1958 totalled 117,000 gross tons. Licences totalling 35,000 gross tons were cancelled during the same period.

Mr. Willey: Is the Civil Lord aware that these figures are very disturbing, especially in view of the high output obtained by the Wear yards this year? Would he consider following his visit to the Clyde by coming to see us on the Wear?

Mr. Galbraith: I certainly intend paying another visit to the East Coast, but


I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be quite so gloomy, because the cancellations on the Wear are, in fact, at a slightly lower percentage than the average throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.

Credit Facilities

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what communications he has received stating that the lack of credit facilities is preventing orders being placed with British shipyards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: One, Sir.

Mr. Willey: Is the Civil Lord aware that I am very surprised? I have a copy of a communication made to him, and the Civil Lord has been kind enough to let me have a copy of his reply. We are very disturbed in Sunderland, where we appear to have lost two contracts solely through lack of credit facilities and are now facing another very important cancellation on the same ground. Will the Civil Lord bestir himself, and see the Admiralty about this?

Mr. Galbraith: It is not a question so much of bestirring myself as of becoming convinced that, in fact, credit facilities are at the root of the problem. I am not convinced of that yet. Apart from this one inquiry, brought to my notice as a result of an Adjournment debate, I have not had any others at all.

Clyde (Vacant Berths)

Mr. Bence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many shipbuilding berths are vacant on the Clyde; and what steps he is taking to arrest the decline in shipbuilding.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Thirteen shipbuilding berths were reported vacant in Clyde shipyards at the end of October, and five were being modernised or repaired. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the debate on the Adjournment on 27th November.

Mr. Bence: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has made strong protests to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose action has very probably resulted in these five berths remaining empty? What is he doing to

prevent other Ministers from taking action frustrating the efforts of shipbuilders on the Clyde to get orders?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) already has an Adjournment Motion on that subject. At the moment, therefore, I cannot comment further on it.

Lowestoft

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the rising incidence in unemployment in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards at Lowestoft, he will reconsider his decision not to place contracts for light craft and repairing work in that port.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: As I told the hon. Member on 9th July, Admiralty contracts for this sort of work are now few and far between, and they must be shared out among a good many deserving areas besides Lowestoft. However, we are watching the position, and, if the opportunity occurs, we will do all we can to improve the order books.

Mr. Evans: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very small ray of hope, may I call his attention to the fact that, every week, skilled shipwrights and technicians are being discharged because of lack of orders? In view of the long history that the port of Lowestoft has in relation to Admiralty contracts, will he see if anything can be done to ameliorate the deplorable position that is arising in the port?

Mr. Galbraith: I am very conscious of the position there, and very sympathetic towards places like the port in the hon. Member's constituency, but I do not really think that it would be honest of me were I to hold out much hope of any change in the near future.

Mr. Callaghan: Is there any objection in principle to foreign Governments placing orders for small craft for the defence of their coasts with shipyards of this sort, and are such orders being executed at the moment?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is merely trying to get an answer to a Question that he addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, I am not. What I am asking is whether, in principle, there is any objection—and I am not referring to any specific country —to foreign Governments placing orders for small craft, which would relieve unemployment, and whether he can tell us if such orders are being executed at the moment?

Mr. Galbraith: No. If the hon. Gentleman really wants an answer to his question, I suggest that he put it on the Order Paper.

Landing Craft

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many major landing craft of the L.C.T. (8) and L.S.T. types have been completed since 1950.

Mr. R. Allan: None, Sir. The existing vessels still have quite a number of years of useful life left, and, before we build replacements, we are making a careful study of what the requirement is likely to be in a few years hence.

Mr. Wall: Is not it a fact that, of the existing vessels, the L.S.T. is too slow and the L.C.T. is not ocean-worthy, and that, as an island, the only way we can land our tanks and vehicles on a foreign country, except at a port, is by using specialised shipping? Have we not yet learned the lesson the last two wars?

Mr. Allan: Our existing landing craft are considered perfectly adequate for the tasks which they may be required to perform.

Mr. Wigg: Has the hon. Gentleman read General Keightley's dispatches, and has he noted that one of the specific complaints was about the shortage of these craft at Suez? Does he mean that he has done absolutely nothing about it since that time?

Mr. Allan: The Admiralty does not operate craft for the build-up. That is done by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, which has a great many more than we have.

Tenders

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what tenders were made by British firms for

twenty merchant ships now being constructed in Poland for Indonesia.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: British shipbuilders are not required to report to the Admiralty what inquiries they receive to quote for building merchant ships. I regret, therefore, that the information is not available.

Mr. Chetwynd: At a time when fifteen times as much tonnage is being placed by British shipowners with foreign shipbuilding works, as compared with the 1 per cent. which is coming here from foreign owners, is not it time that the Admiralty took a much more determined line about this and did its utmost to help our shipyards to obtain work, such as these orders in Poland?

Mr. Galbraith: I really do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. The Admiralty is extremely interested in helping the shipbuilding industry. All I said was that the shipbuilding industry does not have to report to the Admiralty any inquiries it receives, and therefore, to that extent, I cannot answer the Question.

Shipowners (Foreign Orders)

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what consideration the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has given to the question of the tonnage of vessels ordered by United Kingdom shipowners from foreign yards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has given consideration to the question of orders placed by United Kingdom shipowners from foreign yards; and I can assure the hon. Member that the Committee will continue to pay close attention to any fresh evidence on the subject that comes before it.

Mr. Willey: This reply is more reassuring than the hon. Gentleman's earlier replies, but will he consider publishing the advice that this committee cares to make, since there is considerable and widespread interest in this problem, in view of the fact that this is an industry which has depended on exports but which has become an importing industry? Has not this become a very serious matter for the country?

Mr. Galbraith: The Committee, as its name implies, is an advisory committee. For that reason, therefore, I am afraid that I could not consider publishing its recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Maryhill Barracks

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now state when he expects Maryhill Barracks to be finally evacuated by his Department and the site made available.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): It is too soon to give a firm undertaking, but we expect to give up Maryhill Barracks during 1960.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need for this site in the City of Glasgow where there are literally tens of thousands of houses which are over 100 years old? Since no other sites are now available, will he do all he can to expedite the evacuation?

Mr. Fraser: We are making considerable progress and we can give the hon. Member a target date now which we were unable to do in July. This is as far as we can go at the present moment.

Central Ordnance Depôt, Didcot

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the administration of the Central Ordnance Depôt, Didcot, having regard to the use of public stores in excess of scale in messes and offices, and the carrying out of unnecessary painting and decorating.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I shall be glad to investigate these charges if the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with evidence, but, so far as I can discover, there is no substance in either of them. Routine maintenance work, including painting and decorating, has been in progress during recent months. It was properly authorised and done in accordance with the regulations.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is surprising in view of the fact that Didcot is a War Office controlled establishment, and that it is clear from the plan which I have

here, and which I will willingly lend the right hon. Gentleman for use in the War Office, that the officers' mess is to have its accommodation increased from 24 dining members to an establishment of 44, plus sleeping accommodation for one field officer and three junior officers, and this at a time when the over-all establishment is contracting? Is he further aware that there have been three redecorating contracts in the last eighteen months?

Mr. Soames: I think that in two out of the three cases the officers' mess was painted in two different stages, and a number of offices have also been painted. My information is that the decorations will not be affected by the changes to the structure of the building.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to investigate the extension of the mess, in view of the fact that the establishment is not increasing but decreasing?

Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always very ready to take up any point which he brings to my attention.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many horses and grooms, civilian and military, are held on the establishment of the Central Ordnance Depôt, Didcot; for what purpose they are provided; for what purpose they are used; what additional stabling has been recently built, at what cost and under what authority; how many horses are stabled and fed at public expense in excess of establishment, and by whom such animals are owned.

Mr. Soames: Two horses are used at Didcot for pulling refuse carts and delivering fuel. They are worked and looked after by two civilian labourers. There are no grooms on the establishment. To replace a stable which was unsafe, an old building was converted into a stable at a cost of £40. No other horses are kept at public expense.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two animals, one called Deputy and the other called Slumber, were on the establishment for the purpose of pulling the garbage cart? These animals were put down and the Commandant made a special journey to an R.A.V.C. depôt to select two more horses,


Lottery and Josephine. The two horses were selected not for their capabilities of pulling the garbage cart, but for riding. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire about the date on which vouchers were first passed for the use of these horses? Is he also not aware—

Mr. Speaker: This is a very long supplementary question. Cannot the hon. Gentleman condense it a little?

Mr. Wigg: I am only following up the Question on the Order Paper. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commandant's wife's horse is stabled on Government property and is fed at Government expense and that no vouchers have been passed? Further, is he aware that a National Service man—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go into great detail, I think that he ought to try to obtain an Adjournment debate on the matter. Long supplementary questions take up too much of other hon. Members' time.

Mr. Wigg: I should long ago have completed my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but for the noises opposite. Am I not entitled to your protection—

Mr. Speaker: I will always protect the hon. Member if he requires protection, but I have to protect other hon. Members as well.

Mr. Wigg: Am I not entitled to your protection, Mr. Speaker, so that I can complete my supplementary question? Is not the right hon. Gentleman also aware—

Sir T. Moore:: On a point of order. May I move that the hon. Gentleman be no longer heard?

Mr. Speaker: That is not in order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would ask his supplementary question and be done with it.

Mr. Wigg: I propose to do that, Mr. Speaker. Is not the right hon. Gentleman further aware that a National Service man, who was in peace time an apprentice in a racing stable, was taken from his duties to look after these horses?

Mr. Soames: First, I am not aware of the names of the horses. Their duties are to pull the carts and they do their

work excellently. I am afraid that I do not know their antecedents. As to the National Service man, there are two civilians who drive the horses and look after them. One was sick and a National Service man took his place for five months. I think that that answers the majority of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions.

Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to carry out some further investigations and to make sure that these horses, which are held on the establishment to pull the garbage carts, in fact pull the garbage, including some of the hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the provision of a punt for duck shooting and the shooting of pet cats to preserve pheasant shooting in the Central Ordnance Depôt was made with his authority.

Mr. Soames: No punt has been provided for duck shooting and no pet cats have been shot by the Army. Large ordnance depôts have to clear away at intervals the cats which live and multiply among depôt buildings, particularly those which go wild or are not looked after. They are destroyed by the R.S.P.C.A. This has been done at Didcot for many years.

Mr. Wigg: Is not it a fact that at least 70 cats have been destroyed and that they have been destroyed in order to protect the pheasant shooting? Is not it also a fact that a punt has been built in the depôt at public expense? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make inquiries and to examine the work tickets? Is not it also a fact—[Interruption.] On a point of order. May I again ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker? If there were conduct such as this and if noises were made by any hon. Member on this side of the House such as are being made now by hon. Members opposite, I am quite sure that we might by this time have heard your rebuke.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do I understand the hon. Member to say that if the noise had been on his side of the House I should have intervened?

Mr. Wigg: I said that we might have heard your rebuke.

Mr. Speaker: I must express my resentment of any imputation that I have sides in a matter of this sort. I cannot prevent noise from being made on either side of the House. I can only ask for order and ask hon. Members to obey the rules. I have noticed no particular hon. Member on one side or the other, making a noise, whom I could call to order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) must remember that if he asks for order he should maintain it.

Mr. Wigg: If I inadvertently made any reflection on the Chair I shall be the first to withdraw but, equally, I will not be intimidated by rowdy yahoos, whether they are in uniform or whether they wear civilian clothes and sit opposite. The question which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: will he be good enough to make inquiries to see whether in the last few weeks a punt has been built at the public expense? He can do this by examining the work tickets. Would he regard this not as a joke at a time when the efficiency of these ordnance depôts is vital to the security of this country? Will he take the necessary steps to see that at Didcot, at least, things are in order?

Mr. Soames: I certainly do not treat it as a joke, but I think the hon. Member has got the wrong end of the stick. For years there has been a raft on the lake to keep it clear of weeds which grow there. After those years the raft was worn out and a new punt was provided.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Secretary of State agree that these perfectly reasonable questions could have been answered very easily if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Secretary of State had not been interrupted for some ten minutes by hon. Members opposite?

Troops, Kenya

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to increase the number of troops in Kenya; and the purpose of this reinforcement.

Mr. H. Fraser: There has been no change in the policy described last February in my right hon. Friend's Memorandum on the Army Estimates.

Mr. Brockway: The hon. Member will be aware that there has been an announce-

ment that the number of troops is to be increased. Will his Department be very careful indeed about increasing the number of troops in Kenya and taking any steps to establish a base there, which would be in opposition to the opinion of the overwhelming mass of the people, who are Africans?

Mr. Fraser: The Government's policy about this matter rests on the White Paper and is well known. There are two battalions stationed there and, of course, the East African Governments are being fully consulted and informed throughout.

Yorkshire Moors (Bomb Clearance)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the discontent of the men of the 260 Company, R.P.C., Burniston Barracks, Scarborough, Yorkshire, who are clearing bombs off the Yorkshire moors; if he will state the hours they are working away from barracks; on how many days per week; and if he will have an inquiry made into the reasons for the discontent.

Mr. H. Fraser: These men do about five hours' search of the moors and two hours' travel on 4½ days each week. Wednesday afternoons are free for games. At week-ends leave is granted for 36 or 48 hours. I am not aware of any general discontent over these arrangements.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that this does not agree with what the men themselves say? Is he aware that they are doing a dangerous job and that already two men have been injured and one has been killed? Does he realise that the men themselves feel that they are away from the barracks for far too long in view of the work they are doing and that there is general discontent? Will he make some inquiries among the men themselves to find out what they are saying about it?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Lady will write to me, I will take up any point she
cares to raise.

Boots

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts regarding the blunders which resulted in an unwanted surplus of 1,250,000 pairs


of boots and 1,080,000 pairs of half-soles, what action is being taken against those in his Department responsible for this unsatisfactory state of affairs and the inevitable heavy loss of public money.

Mr. Soames: Both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee have made it clear that most of this surplus was due, not to mistaken orders, but to a deliberate reduction in the level of reserve stocks. The surplus was, however, larger than it need have been because of the mistakes in administration commented on by the Committee. There has naturally been a careful inquiry in my Department into this matter. No negligence or misdemeanour has come to light which would call for disciplinary action.

Mr. Dodds: Having read the Report, I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. How does he square what he said with this extract from the Report:
Your Committee fail to understand why the War Office should have ordered in 1955, when there were no unusually pressing circumstances, a far greater quantity of boots and half-soles than was warranted.
Is not that clear? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern that blunders can happen time after time in Government Departments and no one is ever penalised for them? Is rot he aware that Ministers—and he is one of the greatest offenders in respect of the War Office—come to the Box to whitewash obvious blunders? It is not to be wondered at that these things happen time and time again.

Mr. Soames: There is no question of trying to whitewash any blunders. I am endeavouring to put the matter in proportion. There are 1,250,000 surplus pairs of boots, which was about three pairs per man in the standing Army of the time. Of that number, 1,100,000 are being disposed of because of the changed policy of reserve holdings. The extra 150,000 were over-ordered.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister say why it is necessary to keep 9¼ years' stocks of boots? Will he answer that? How will he dispose of the boots?

Mr. Soames: They will be disposed of by the Ministry of Supply.

Supply(Organisation)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary State for War what machinery exists in his Department for supervising the placing of large orders for supplies; why, after receiving the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, he did not take action to deal with the situation but preferred to await the report of the Committee of Public Accounts; and what administrative action he proposes to avoid such financial waste in future.

Mr. Soames: In answer to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16th July. Action consequent upon the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General was begun at once; there was no question of waiting upon the Public Accounts Committee. Changes have been made in training, financial control and ordering procedure. That is part of a continuing process to keep the Army's organisation for supply as efficient as we can make it.

Mr. Dodds: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the Leader of the Liberal Party that he was waiting for the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts? Has he no check on his own Department, when an obvious mistake has been made, to enable him to take action either to clear the people concerned or to sack them?

Mr. Soames: Action has been taken on the controlling of procedure. As to what happened before the Public Accounts Committee Report was published, what I told the hon. Member was that I could not refer to this until the Public Accounts Committee had reported.

Mr. Strachey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these two Reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee substantiate in essence the charges which my hon. Friend has made on these matters over many months now and that a more satisfactory explanation should be given?

Mr. Soames: There is no question about this. About 157,000 pairs of boots too many were bought, and that was pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he proposes to put a million surplus boots on the market at knockdown prices it will cause considerable alarm in Northamptonshire?

Mr. Soames: That is a matter for the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory Answer, I give notice that I will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment before Christmas.

CYPRUS

3.30 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on Cyprus.
We have been striving, and we shall continue to strive, for a political settlement which will bring peace to the island. I intend in a few moments to say something on the position now that the debate in the United Nations is over. But I wish, first, to refer to the suggestion arising out of the inquest on Andreas Louca that there should be some form of inquiry into the conduct of British troops in Cyprus.
When we consider the crimes which have been committed against our troops and the provocation which they have undergone, I think that we have a right to be proud not only of their high morale but of their discipline and restraint. Of course, there are people in some countries who would wish to discredit Great Britain by wild and unjustified allegations.
At the same time, we are very jealous of the honour of our troops and we have recognised that in the peculiarly difficult circumstances of maintaining order in the face of terrorism and civil disorder vigilance was required and there were bound to be incidents concerning which as full information as possible should be available. The Governor, therefore, some time ago, set up a special investigation group to undertake prompt inquiries into any complaints against the security forces. This has been of considerable value to the Governor and his advisers. It is

clear that these reports could not be released for publication without prejudicing the usefulness of this system in the future.
After the murder in Famagusta, on 3rd October, of Mrs. Cutliffe, and the wounding of another soldier's wife, it was hoped that the assailant might he seized and identified in the neighbourhood of the crime. A round-up of the males nearby for possible identification therefore followed. In accordance with normal practice a report of the events was made to the Governor. The searching inquiries which were made have not led to the securing of any evidence to identify any particular individual or individuals of the security forces as having used an unjustified degree of force.
Coroner's inquests were held in two cases. The coroner formed the view that there appeared to have been used on some of those arrested a greater degree of force than was justifiable. The coroner also recognised the horror, disgust and anger that filled the minds and hearts of everyone on that day. Thirdly, he drew attention to the many discrepancies in the evidence of certain witnesses who alleged brutality and he said that certain witnesses seemed more anxious to inculpate the security forces than to help the court with unbiased evidence. He said that he had not sufficient evidence to enable him to conclude when or by whom the blow which led to Louca's death was struck.
In view of the very full inquiries made by the coroner and the group to which I have referred, and to the fact that none of these investigations has produced evidence to identify any particular individual or individuals as having used excessive force, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by holding a further inquiry now.
I should mention that there was one case in which misconduct by a particular individual has come to light—it was a case of larceny—and this man has already been tried and sentenced by court-martial.
More generally, I must repeat that even in the suppression of brutal murder the use of undue force is repugnant to the civil and military authorities in Cyprus as well as to the Government here. In any case, where there is evidence of a kind to justify the preferment of charges in respect of such misconduct action will be


taken in the future as in the past. In addition, the new Director of Operations has recently seen all the commanding officers and made personal visits to the units to impress upon them the need for the utmost restraint in the use of force, however great the provocation. I feel sure that we can have full confidence both in the troops and in their commanders.
Before passing to the future, I ought perhaps to say a word about the Geunyeli incident, concerning which the Governor of Cyprus published a Report on Tuesday, 9th December, of which copies have been placed in the Library of the House. This Report is of a Commission of Inquiry conducted by the Chief Justice into an incident on 12th June, when eight Greek Cypriots met their deaths at the hands of Turkish Cypriots after they had been detained by the security forces and then released some distance from their village.
A special inquiry was held in this case because the incident occurred at a time of acute intercommunal tension and it was imperative to investigate the allegation that the security forces had intentionally contributed to the death of the unfortunate victims. The Chief Justice's Report, although he had certain criticisms to make, wholly repudiates this baseless suggestion.
I now turn to questions of general policy. After two weeks of debate on the Cyprus question the General Assembly of the United Nations has passed a short resolution in very general terms. At one time there were seven different draft resolutions before the Political Committee. Some of these would have been acceptable to us; others, we thought, pointed too much in the direction of a particular final solution.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs took the opportunity, of the debate in the United Nations, to give a full explanation of our policy. He described in detail the British plan with which the House is familiar. He also explained the lengths to which Her Majesty's Government have gone in their endeavours to reach an agreement for the holding of a conference at which the British plan could be discussed and amendments to it agreed, and at which the final solution could also be discussed. We still believe that useful progress could be made

through a conference, either confined to the parties directly concerned, including, of course, Cypriot representatives, or with the assistance of others chosen by agreement.
The proceedings in the General Assembly revealed a wide measure of understanding of the complexity of the Cyprus problem and not a little sympathy for the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made to deal with it. They also, I think, revealed some reluctance on the part of many of those not directly concerned with the problem to try to lay down the conditions on which a settlement should be sought. The resolution finally adopted avoided this and simply expressed confidence that continued efforts would be made by the parties to reach a peaceful. democratic and just solution in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. That is certainly our hope.
It is right that a little time should now be allowed for the Governments concerned to consider their position in the light of the United Nations' debate. Next week, in Paris, there is a Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Councii which will be attended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have every expectation that the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey will be present. No doubt advantage will be taken of this occasion for confidential discussions between those who have been principally concerned. I feel sure that this approach is the most likely to be fruitful.
As we have already made clear, we are ready to discuss with our Greek and Turkish Allies the interim arrangements for the administration of Cyprus described in my statements of 19th June and 15th August; and we are willing, as we have said, to put into effect any amendments to our announced policy on which agreement can be reached. These offers remain open and can be taken up at any time. We regretted that the Greek Government did not feel able to agree to a conference on the lines discussed in N.A.T.O. last October. But the position may now have changed. In any case, we continue to hope that in time the Greek Government will see the advantages to the Greek Cypriots and to Greece of the offers which we have made to them.
Whatever the difficulties, progress has been made in narrowing the area of dispute. For our part, we shall do our utmost to reach agreement.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister has made a long and important statement, and I think that we shall wish to study it carefully, but I should like to ask him, first, a question on the earlier part of his statement. While I agree very much with many of the things that he said both about our pride in the conduct of our troops and being jealous of their honour, did he not somewhat under-estimate the strength of the comments of the coroner about the Famagusta episode? Did not the coroner speak of
a degree of force that would appear to be entirely unjustified
being
used by security forces "?
Although he very properly went on to say:
One can fully understand the horror, disgust, and anger which filled the minds and hearts of everyone that day".
he added:
But nothing can justify the assaults on those who were not responsible for the shootings and who had done nothing to warrant such assaults.
This is a difficult matter, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is not grave danger that, these remarks of the coroner having gone out throughout the whole world, there will be a misunderstanding on the part of other countries at least about the conduct of our troops if the matter is left just there? Is there not really at least a stronger case for an inquiry by the Chief Justice than there was in the other case? Is not the difficulty in the case of these private inquiries which are made that we never hear about them and, consequently. they are not much use from the point of view of refuting the allegations made about British troops?
I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider this point, because we are all of us jealous of the honour of the troops and wish to see them vindicated. We support entirely what he said. Perhaps I may defer my other questions until the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with that.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Of course, in the inquiry which the Governor asked

the Chief Justice to hold there was a special examination of a charge which would have had, I think, very grave consequences in exacerbating intercommunal feeling in Cyprus. In these circumstances the inquiry was held, but, of course, it was not really a question of disputing the facts. It was the interpretation of the facts. I feel satisfied from what the coroner said himself as to the witnesses, as to the impossibility of finding any prima facie case against any particular person, and from the information in the Governor's possession, that no inquiry at this time could succeed in bringing any prima facie result upon which a charge could be based.
But I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the spirit in which he has said it, and perhaps I may take the opportunity to inform the House, and, since he has referred to it, the world, of the instructions issued under the heading, "Standards of conduct" by the Director of Operations. I will read it:
A correct standard of treatment towards the public is one of the first principles of internal security duties. Rough handling and bad manners towards the public are quite unnecessary, alienate feelings both here and abroad, and make our task doubly difficult. Commanders must bring home to all ranks that there is a world of difference between quick and effective action against the terrorists, and a 'bullying' attitude towards the person halted for checking or screening. The former is efficient; the latter is the very opposite.
I can remember many cases in the history of the world where there have been troubles of this kind. I cannot remember any order so humane or so wise.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am glad that the Prime Minister read out that order. May I ask him, however, whether, in view of his reply, the refusal of the Government to have any further inquiry is really due to their satisfaction that no responsibility can be brought home to any individual in this, but that, for the rest, the Government must accept the findings of the coroner in this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that that is a fair comment.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask one or two questions on the wider issues of policy? May I ask, first, whether the Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, when they go into these private conversations in N.A.T.O., will do so with an open mind, willing to consider


any possible solution which may be agreeable and acceptable to the Governments principally concerned? In that connection, may I ask what is the position in regard to the British plan? Is it, in fact, being operated in Cyprus today? Is it really necessary to adhere so rigidly to it? Would it not help matters if the Government were to say that they no longer insisted on proceeding with this plan, but were willing to make a fresh start in the whole business?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that with the first part of what the right hon. Gentleman said I am in agreement. We will go into any conference with an open mind and will implement any modifications of the short-term plan that may be agreed, and we would discuss any final settlement; but I think that it would be a great error to throw everything into the melting pot again. I think that we should proceed quietly and unprovocatively to make progress with all the measures which we have proposed, as they have been amended, to try to meet all concerned; but I think that our first purpose must be the one on which he placed particular importance, and that is, to see whether we cannot revive and make effective what so very nearly did take place— a conference on the lines proposed a few weeks ago.

Mr. Clement Davies: Surely, in view of the resolution adopted by the United Nations and for which the Government voted, and of the fact that the Greek Government themselves refused to come to the conference on the footing that the plan would be discussed, and also in view of the fact that apparently the Prime Minister is anxious to bring all these people together, does he not think that the right thing to do now, in order to bring them round the table, is to send out an invitation in general terms, without insisting upon any plan at all?

The Prime Minister: If I thought that that would lead to a settlement I would do so.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Everything has failed.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it has not failed. Very great progress has been made and a great deal has been done to narrow the differences. When we were

discussing the possible conference there were no differences on the agenda, or on the composition, or on the chairmanship. We must remember that we agreed, after the start of the conference, that we would be quite willing to pass the chairmanship to M. Spaak. Coming from the sovereign Power, I think that that is a reasonable and rather generous suggestion.
Much to our chagrin, after we thought that everything would go through, the Greek Government, for reasons which I can understand, did not feel able, at that time, to hold a conference. Possibly, the United Nations' discussions coming forward may have influenced them. What I would like to do now is to see whether, by quiet and diplomatic methods, we can restore the situation to what it was, but I think that for me to make a public declaration now would not have that effect and might, indeed, disturb some of the progress which we have made.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement show the value of the coroner's inquest as part of British law and could not that estimable procedure be extended to other occupied areas, for example, East Germany or Hungary, where Russian troops are in occupation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has underlined the contrast between the British method of doing things and other people's methods, and I am glad that he has done so.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, on this side of the House at least, believe very much in this plan and also believe that it will meet increasing support in Cyprus if we stand resolutely by it? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the electoral registers are being compiled and other preparations are being made for the setting up of the representative institutions which many of us hope very much will come into being in Cyprus under the partnership plan sooner than looks like being the case at present?

The Prime Minister: It is the intention of the Governor, supported by the Government—and I again use the phrase—to proceed quietly and unprovocatively to all the necessary administrative measures.

Mr. J. Hynd: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the findings of


the coroner's report, which mostly bears out what was so obvious to everybody in Cyprus at the time, and while making every allowance for the troops getting out of hand, which I can understand, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the House is not entitled to receive from him an explanation of why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War denied that the troops had got out of hand? Did the Minister make that statement in the full knowledge of the facts or without any knowledge of the facts?

The Prime Minister: The coroner did not say that the troops got out of hand, and at no time was there any kind of breakdown of discipline. Let the House just imagine the picture. When this particularly brutal murder of the wife of a sergeant was committed, it was hoped, by a round-up, because one of the relatives thought that the man could be identified, to catch the man quickly. But, of course, a round-up of this kind in the circumstances at that time is a very difficult operation and, naturally, it is not surprising that there were some things such as were referred to by the coroner. Whether it was right to have that roundup at that time is a matter of judgment. There are other methods, not altogether unsuccessful, now being pursued by the Director of Operations, but there was never anything of the kind of a breakdown of discipline. There were certain incidents, such as can be imagined, which took place.
I should like, if I may, to add a few words to show the lack of bias and the attempt to keep absolutely fair, on the part of the authorities on the spot. I remember, and the House will remember, that not very long ago there was a good deal of criticism of a case of a corporal who was court-martialled for distributing leaflets urging strong methods of the kind which do not commend themselves to either the military authorities or the Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: While we agree that we have sympathy with the troops and there is no criticism of the authorities here, can it really be said that if the coroner's report is accepted by the Government and he says that wholly unjustifiable force was used, there was not, therefore, a breakdown in discipline? Otherwise, how can the right hon. Gentleman explain it?

The Prime Minister: I will place the official transcript of the coroner's remarks in the Library as soon as we have a copy. We have now only a cabled reply. What the coroner said was that there was use on some of those arrested of a degree of force which would appear to be entirely unjustified. That does not seem to me anything of the kind of an accusation of a breakdown in discipline.

Viscount Lambton: In the event of the Greek Government saying that they are prepared to renounce Enosis, to condemn terrorism and support or agree to Cyprus being part of the British Commonwealth in some degree or other, would we be prepared to drop the plan?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If the Greek Government were to make those proposals we would discuss them, of course, both from the point of view of their effect on any interim arrangements and their effect on the longer future; and that would certainly be a contribution to the conference. Surely we must now try to see that we can get a discussion, which, after all, is what the United Nations have told us to do.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the murder of Mrs. Cutliffe and other horrifying outrages that have taken place, is it not foolhardy in the extreme not only to allow Service families to remain in Cyprus but actually permit more to go out there?

The Prime Minister: I warned the House in an earlier statement that, although we had temporarily stopped sending out families, I did not think that we could hold that position consistent with the morale of our troops, more especially when at this very time so many people seem to be willing to volunteer to go to that island. I told the House then that, of course, any family that wished to return could do so at the public expense. In one case, where there were special circumstances, advantage has been taken of that offer. But after examining the matter and getting the advice of the Secretary of State, the Service Ministers, the Minister of Defence and all those concerned, I am sure that if we are to maintain the very high state of morale of the troops it is far better to let the families go out.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his refusal to be budged


from the main lines of his plan for Cyprus will command widespread support outside the House, as well as inside, as will also his jealousy for the reputation of our troops and his refusal to be bamboozled into an inquiry which could lead only to another smear?

Mr. Donnelly: Can the Prime Minister say what is the position of Archbishop Makarios in relation to attending such a proposed conference as he envisages? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the possibility of the return of the Archbishop to the island?

The Prime Minister: I think that the more important is the first part of that supplementary question. I should rather like notice of the second part.
We made quite clear that in the conference, which, I repeat, will be between the representatives of the three Governments, there would be added to it representatives of other Governments. I think that we have agreed on two. We have agreed that M. Spaak, in his special position, should be present. We have also all agreed that representatives of the Cyprus people, whether Greek or Turkish, should be present at the conference, and they would be absolutely free to propose whom they wish. If they wished the Archbishop to represent the Greek Cypriots, then, certainly, he will be present at the conference.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the main obstacle to the holding of the conference on Cyprus the Greek fear that the British plan will lead to partition? Has not the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, at the United Nations, by turning down the Indian resolution, on the ground that it ruled out partition, made those fears even more active than they were before? Would the right hon. Gentleman not make the conference possible now by announcing that if Enosis is ruled out by the Greeks Her Majesty's Government, for their part, will declare that partition is ruled out?

The Prime Minister: All these things will be discussed as part of the final settlement, and statements by Governments at the conference would have great weight. But I must enter this caveat. Sometimes we are urged to follow very correctly the views of the United Nations.

We do our best. On this occasion almost a two-thirds majority supported our view and the whole supported the final resolution to which we are trying to conform.

Sir A. V. Harvey: To avoid any misunderstanding, will my right hon. Friend inform British forces in Cyprus of our real sympathy with them in the difficult task which they have to carry out and tell them that the Government and the country are very much behind them in the way in which they are carrying out their duties?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the whole tone of the House today —and I express my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said—shows that, though sometimes we have great differences, on this we ought to send out a message of good cheer and confidence from the whole House of Commons, Parliament and all our people.

Mr. Paget: As the beneficial effect of the right hon. Gentleman's plan and his personal handling of the Cyprus issue seem to be so much more obvious to him and to some hon. Members opposite than to us on this side of the House, may I ask whether we can have an opportunity soon to debate the matter?

The Prime Minister: That, no doubt. will be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr, Crossman: On the question of an inquiry, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that the coroner, in his findings, referred to people in hospital who had to be treated for "beatingup"? Is it not difficult to believe that there was no laxity of discipline if a number of Greeks, according to the coroner, had to be treated in hospital for "beating-up"? Is not the sort of questioning that we are now having proof of the need for a further inquiry, for there seem to be considerable differences even now? Is it not a fact that if the Prime Minister really accepts the findings of the coroner, he cannot possibly accept the version given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War?

The Prime Minister: I must hold to what I have said. I am quite satisfied that no further inquiry could be of practical value. I should like to recall to


the House the circumstances. Some of these men were collected and some tried to break out from their control. Certain incidents, no doubt, did take place, but I have maintained and I repeat—and I hope that the House will accept it—that there was nothing of the kind that could be called a breakdown of discipline.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the need to encourage a peaceful atmosphere in Cyprus, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposal that, just as many of the curfew regulations have been withdrawn, if peace is maintained in the island there should be before Christmas a very considerable liberation of the detainees now there?

The Prime Minister: Of course, if and when, as we hope, the emergency is brought to an end, that will follow. I think that we must be careful that we do not take steps which would lead to the undoing of the gains that we have made.

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. kin Macleod): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 9th July, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I said that, when Parliamentary time permitted, I hoped to introduce a Bill which would do three things. First, it would repeal the Catering Wages Act, 1943; secondly, it would abolish the Catering Wages Commission; and, thirdly, it would make certain amendments to the Wages Councils Acts. This is the Bill which I then forecast, and to which today I invite the House to give a Second Reading.
About 3½ million people in the country have their wages governed by statutory wages regulations, and the story goes back, of course, to the Trade Boards Act of 1909, introduced, when he was President of the Board of Trade, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), whom I am delighted to see in his place. In 1943, Mr. Ernest Bevin brought forward the Catering Wages Bill, and we should notice that the 1943 Act was brought forward before the Wages Councils Act of 1945. If it had not been in that order catering wages boards would have been wages councils from the beginning, and some of the difficulties that have led to the need for this Bill would never have arisen.
The idea of Mr. Bevin at the time was, first, to protect staffing standards in canteens in wartime; but, as he often did, he was looking a long way ahead, and he was anxious to protect the standards of 750,000 people who are engaged in this very important industry. That is an object from which I do not dissent in the least, but the course of events since 1943 shows that in one sector at least of this trade there is some difficulty in carrying out the intentions of the 1943 Act.
Five boards were recommended by the Catering Wages Commission, and all five of these were duly set up. Four of them


are to continue intact, under their new name of wages councils, and they are put forward in Clause 1 (3) of the Bill. Even as far as these four are concerned, some of them, and one in particular—the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Board— attracted some criticism from the begining, and these criticisms affected such matters as overtime, the spread-over of work and tipping. It is important to remember that alterations have been made since then—in 1948, in 1949, in July, 1951; one of the last acts of the right hon. Gentleman—and again in 1954.
We may hear echoes of these criticisms today in our debate, but I think that, since those changes have been made, the criticisms have diminished a good deal in force, and if one reads the trade journals today it would seem that it is not the wages regulations but the shortage of workers in the industry which is causing most concern at the time. I think that we may also say that if the conditions of work of these workers were less satisfactory, no doubt the shortage of workers would be all the more severe as a result.
The fifth board, the one that does not appear in Clause 1, is the board which has really led in large measure to the need for the Bill, and this ran into trouble from the start. This is, perhaps, not surprising, because it tried to lay down regulations for all establishments with more than four bedrooms, and, indeed, in many cases, comparatively small boarding houses. In February, 1949, the board produced its first proposals, and had 440 representations made against them, so it took them back, thought again, and produced new proposals in August, 1949. This time, it had 1,107 representations made against them.
At this point, it disagreed on what to put to the Minister, and eventually put nothing to the Minister, so, not surprisingly, when the appointments of its members lapsed in 1950, the Minister decided not to replace them, and that has been the position ever since. That is to say, this board has a legal existence at present, but has no members and therefore, has not met for eight years.
The Minister of Labour of the day, in 1950, then invited the Catering Wages Commission to reconsider the matter. A

report, called the Forster Report, was produced, but this again was not wholly acceptable, and the Catering Wages Commission finally produced its own solution, which was that the two hotels boards should be scrapped, and, in their place, on a more geographical basis, there should be four other boards. Finally, when we had reached this point, legal advice was taken, and it was discovered that the original Act was so rigid that, whatever the original merits of that solution might be, it could not be put forward because the scope of none of the boards could be varied in any way. At that point, darkness descended on the scene and has remained unbroken ever since.
It is important to remember that this deadlock does not only affect the fifth board. It also meant that the scope of the other boards was fixed and permanent. In the example I quoted a moment ago the Catering Wages Commission thought that it would be a good idea to have one board for Scotland. I do not know whether that is right or not. Only an inquiry can tell us, but what I do know is that, whether it was or was not a good idea, it cannot be done at present, and that is an added argument for having this sort of legislation.
It can most conveniently be presented, as, indeed, it is presented, by bringing these boards within the purview of the Wages Councils Act. I regard this as more than just a change of name; I regard it as an attempt to bring more flexibility into the administration of an industry where flexibility is not only desirable, but, as the House will realise, essential.
With the disappearance of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, goes the Catering Wages Commission. Its functions have largely been taken over by other bodies, notably those in relation to the tourist trade. Here I would like to thank the members, and in particular the chairman, for the work done, especially in the early years, in following out the ideas of the 1943 Act.
There is one point I should clear up which was mentioned in another place, namely, that the Commission intends to produce a final report to cover the years 1957 to 1958. I understand that it is really out of courtesy to my proposals and to the House that this has been held back until it has been possible for the


House to discuss the solution I am putting forward today.
In 1943, Mr. Ernest Bevin brought forward his Bill. The Parliamentary Secret try at that time is now my noble Friend Lord McCorquodale, and in another place he welcomed this Bill. I am sure that Mr. Bevin would have taken the same course. I am also sure that he would have looked more closely at the guarantees we are leaving behind than at anything else, and I will say a word on that point.
We intend to protect in every way the tour boards whose existence we are continuing, their present position and, indeed, to follow out exactly the spirit of the 1943 Act. That is done in the following ways. First, the inspectorate will continue. There is not a separate catering wages inspectorate, it is part of the ordinary wages inspectorate. Secondly, in the First Schedule to the Bill I take transitional powers to cover the time of change from wages boards to wages councils. Thirdly, the councils are given exactly the same cover—this is made clear in Clause 1 of the Bill—as the previous boards, both as regards workers and their employers.
Lastly, all the regulations, such as those for minimum wages, holiday pay and holiday wages, are to be continued. The protection, therefore, is to remain complete, but I shall now be able to set up an inquiry either into the position of those at present covered by the fifth board or into any other proposal to vary the scope of the existing boards.
Perhaps I should say here that the composition of wages councils is identical with that of wages boards that is to say, there are three independent members appointed by myself, with an equal number of representatives of workers and employers. As the House will see, because the number of members on the two sides are equal there is, in effect, built-in arbitration, because the ultimate decision will be taken by the independent members.
I do not propose to conduct the House through all the Clauses of the Bill, because some deal with transitional matters. I will only mention briefly two Clauses, 3 and 6. Clause 3 appears hideously complicated, I know, but that is in part because it clears the way for consolidation. I hope to produce a Measure which will consolidate all the Wages

Councils Acts as soon as this Bill becomes law. Therefore, in its ultimate form it will probably be a good deal simpler than the way I have to present it now to the House.
Clause 3 is also rather complicated, because I am having to spell out, as it were, considerations which a commission of inquiry ought to take into account. However, it enables me now to get impartial advice from a commission of inquiry when there is any proposal, either to abolish or to vary the scope of a board. It was not possible to do this before except on a proposal for abolition, and then only if it was put to me by a joint industrial council or a similar body.
Clause 6 relates to home workers. These are important in the clothing trade, in the manufacture of toys, laces and some other similar trades. We always thought they were protected, and we do protect them administratively, but in 1953, in a case in the cutlery trade, where also a certain amount of homework is carried out, it appeared doubtful whether the law extended to these workers, and Clause 6 is intended to make sure that we bring them in. I am sure that the House will agree it is right that these people, even where they work away from the parent factory, should have the protection of this system.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), in our exchanges on 9th July, whether I would have full consultation. We consulted the National Joint Advisory Council and the Bill has the general approval of both sides of industry. In addition, we have consulted 37 other bodies, including in particular the National Joint Trade Union Council for the Catering Industry. I think we have taken all their comments and points into account, and although no doubt there will be minor matters we can thrash out in Committee, I do not know of any major difference of view in the Bill as it stands.
It is in the light of this general agreement that I want to say a word about something that is not in the Bill, but which, I hope, will be in it by the time it finally leaves the House. The House will remember that a few weeks ago, on 19th November, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth moved a


Prayer to annul the Order I had laid before the House, which meant, in effect, the end of compulsory arbitration. I made my position clear then. I said that although I realised that this was a controversial matter, I did not think that normally, in peace time, compulsory arbitration for disputes had a full part to play. I also said that I was impressed by the importance attached to the question of issues, and that I was very ready to see whether further talks could produce something like an agreed solution.
I understand that those talks will take place shortly, and although the final form will be a matter for the Government and for the House, I hope very much that some general agreement on this matter can be reached. I am sure that the House will at least agree that if such an agreement is reached, and we can put forward proposals, we would like to see them become law as soon as possible. I can assure the House that it is pure chance, although it looks extremely cunning, that we have a Bill before the House at the moment into which these proposals would fit naturally because they, too, would be an amendment of the Wages Councils Acts. I hope, therefore, in Committee, to be able, with some general agreement, to move a Clause or Clauses into the Bill to cover those matters.
Perhaps I should say on the specific point of local government, to which so many hon. Members pay particular attention, that talks are taking place between those concerned in it on the question of voluntary arbitration in relation to disputes. For myself, I think that that is the right course to take and I wish those talks well. We will, naturally, take into account local government interest in issues which may arise on any Clauses I suggest to the House for introduction into the Bill. If necessary, we will consult with the authorities and with N.A.L.G.O. before I table any proposition.
That is the Bill I propose. It is a repeal of the 1943 Act, but it seems to me also to be a natural development from it. It is a small but important step in giving a change of direction to the administration of a very important industry; indeed, so important that it has now become out largest single dollar earner,

and in 1957 earned no less than £44 million. It is an attempt to make flexible what formerly was rigid. To that extent it is much more than the mere change of name that Clause 1 indicates. I hope that on this basis, therefore, the Bill, to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading, will be acceptable to the industry and to the House.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: First, I would like to say how much we appreciate the manner in which the Minister of Labour has explained the Bill to the House. We welcome not only his explanation of details, which we can examine further in Committee, but the thinking which lay behind the production of the Bill. Secondly, we give general approval to the Bill for the same reasons that the Minister has already expressed.
Naturally, we are most interested in the statement by the Minister on the question of issues. One is glad that the time has come, rather more quickly than some of us thought, because of the fortuitous production of the Bill at this time, when the question of issues may well become agreed between the parties and, therefore, may perhaps be given legislative effect during the Committee stage of the Bill. Again, we welcome that. We may have discussion later on the precise wording of the new Clauses, but those are Committee matters.
I have read the Second Reading debates of the Catering Wages Act and the Wages Councils Act. The Minister has accurately described what was in the mind of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin. The fact that so many changes have been made in relation to this industry is no indication that the original legislation was wrong. It shows the remarkable degree to which, in our way of working things out, we have flexible minds and were prepared to look at the problems confronting the catering industry. Each Minister of Labour in turn, irrespective of party, has tried to do his utmost within the terms of the rigidity of the Act, which controlled his actions, to meet the situation.
I am very glad that the Minister drew the attention of the House to the fact that when we are discussing today what is, perhaps, a modest Measure, we are, nevertheless, dealing with one of our


largest industries. It is, therefore, extremely important. Certainly, we want to protect wages and conditions and we want great flexibility in scope. We want the Minister to be able to extend the scope of particular wages councils and not to be confined, as he has been and still is, within the present legislation.
As we have always, in all parts of the House, subscribed to the theory that we prefer voluntary negotiation and agreement rather than legislation, I see the Bill as another step forward, as, apparently, the Minister does too, towards that end. Indeed, I would hope that we would take the advice, which has been given on successive occasions, and latterly in another place, by the Minister who is responsible for introducing the Bill, that there should be very good organisation on the part of the employers and on the part of the workers in the industry.
Unless there is good organisation on the side of the workers and of the employers the councils themselves cannot operate as efficiently as if there is good organisation. As this is also Government policy, as expressed by Lord Dundee, in another place, I would plead that efforts might be made by the employers in the industry to persuade those who are with them in their associations to provide the necessary facilities so that trade union organisations can be as complete as possible and thus make the wages councils operate fully.
I go even further and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me. If we could reach the stage that we have good organisation on both sides, it would be possible to move further forward outside the wages council machinery. The Minister would, I am sure, be more than pleased to receive an application for the wages council in a certain section of the industry to be abolished and for its place to be taken by a voluntary joint industrial council with, I would hope, built-in arbitration, so that the whole set-up is then part of our voluntary machinery. After all, the whole purpose of our legislation concerning wages and conditions, health, safety and welfare, is mainly to protect those who, for one reason or another, are not able to protect themselves.
I am glad, therefore, that the Minister drew our attention to the fact that the fifth Board—the non-licensed residential board—has never been able to operate

because of the very large number of people in this section of the industry. I do not know whether these figures are authoritative, but I am told that there must be between 60,000 and 75,000 of these establishments with more than four bedrooms. I am also informed that about 100,000 workers are engaged. They are all very small employers. The difficulty of organisation, therefore, is apparent on both sides. If as a result of the Bill the Minister is able to provide the necessary legislative protection for this class of worker and for the good employer at the same time, I am certain that we will all welcome it.
While the tourist trade is one of our biggest industries, and the Minister has given important figures concerning dollar earnings, we have not by any means reached the end of that road. The capacity for dollar earning in this country is far greater than many of us perhaps realise. We cannot get tourist trade, however, unless we provide first-class accommodation for people who come over here.
When we talk of dollar earnings, we think in terms of the American visitor. The truth is that anyone who has spent any time at all in the United States—and the Minister, of course, comes fresh from that country—knows perfectly well that, by and large, hotel accommodation there, even for the man of modest means, is first-class, very much better—

Mr. John Eden: Mr. John Eden(Bournemouth, West) indicated dissent.

Mr. Robens: I see that the hon. Member disagrees. I spent three months in the United States and stayed at the Statler and Hilton Hotels. I do not regard them as outstandingly expensive, certainly not when I was there. Their terms of five or six dollars for a bed was not excessive in the United States at that time, taking their increases in cost as compared with our own. Nevertheless, they provide fine accommodation with private bathrooms to all their bedrooms, and so on. Their value for money in terms of actual accommodation offered for the tourist is probably better than most countries are able at present to offer.
We could offer that and I am certain that most hoteliers and those engaged in accommodating tourists want to offer it. I know that other problems arise, however. I understand that Purchase Tax


on goods for hotels is a sore point with hoteliers. It is not the subject of this debate, but I have no doubt that it can be discussed some time. I hope that we will not lose sight of the fact that while we want legislation and flexibility with the wages councils for dealing with wages, conditions and hours of employment, we must do all that we possibly can in other ways to help the hotelier to develop this thriving industry, which certainly can be considerably extended. It can be of considerable value to our country and as a dollar earner it gives us results that we do not get anywhere else in industry, because we are supplying service, an indigenous product, for our dollars and we do not have the problems of manufacture.

Sir Charles Taylor: I cannot let the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman go completely unchallenged. If he goes to any hotel in this country equivalent to the Statler hotels in America, he will find, first, that the accommodation is just as good and just as modern, and secondly, a standard of service which is incomparably better here than in America.

Mr. Robens: I would not want to detract at all from the best that we provide in this country, and I hope that none of my remarks will be so taken. I have no doubt that these things apply in the West End, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman—as he must travel round the country a good deal—that if he got into some of our provincial towns he would not make the same claim.
Those of us who have to spend some of our time in the provinces, and may have to live in hotels there at the weekend, do not find the kind of accommodation about which I was speaking, and which I found in almost every town that I visited in the United States. I passed through 24 of their States and, universally, the standard was excellent. In this country, outside London, one cannot say that, except for the high-priced hotels, the standard is anything like that to be found in the United States.
I do not disparage our own industry, but we, as Parliament—and the Government, particularly—must try to help hoteliers and others to put—I almost said their houses in order, but to put their

hotels in order to attract the tourist trade. I seek to help, not to discourage the industry.
We welcome the Bill for what it is; for the elasticity and flexibility that we shall now have in relation to wages and conditions. I join with the Minister in his thanks to and appreciation of those who have been actively operating the present wages boards. They have done an extremely useful job. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has found it so valuable that he has continued the same kind of organisation under the wages councils. Therefore, as I say, I join with him in expressing my thanks to those who have given their time to this work.
We are glad to realise that the question of issues is now likely to be a question of legislation fairly quickly, and that we can look forward to it as soon as the parties have decided on the kind of agreement they can come to. We shall examine the Bill, with the Minister, with some care in Committee, but it will certainly be in a constructive sense. We shall try to produce a Measure that will be of service to the industry and to all those who arc engaged in it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) welcome the Bill on behalf of his party. It had been suggested to me by someone who obviously did not know what he was talking about that the Opposition intended to object to it. Personally, I found it very difficult to conceive of any reason why they should, for surely the Bill's main purpose is to extend to about 100,000 workers in the industry the protection of the old Catering Wages Act, which was originally designed to cover all the workers in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) and I are the two Members representing a town that, for its size, has more hotels and boarding houses than any other in the country. On their behalf, I can tell the Minister that, in general, they welcome the Bill. The hotel keeper is a man of independent mind and, naturally, would prefer not to be troubled by any Government regulations at all, but he is wise enough to recognise that, in 1958—and especially in an industry where the trade


union organisation is not very strong, there must be regulations laid down by the Government and boards to sustain them—that will protect the interests of the workers.
Relations within the industry have latterly, by and large, been very good. The Catering Wages Act certainly helped to establish those good relations. In the smaller hotels and boarding houses with which the new proposals really deal, those good relations have been just as satisfactory as in the larger places. For one thing, the smaller hotel or boarding house would not attract any labour at all unless it was prepared to pay wages of the same standard as those available to the workers in other parts of the industry for which wages boards already exist.
In addition, we are speaking of an industry that depends for its survival and progress upon good personal relationships, even intimate personal relationships between the employee and the employer. One finds that in a place such as Bournemouth, despite the great difficulty of keeping on staffs in the winter months, when there are very few guests, the hoteliers and boarding house keepers do their utmost to do so. They wish to give their workers some sort of security in their jobs; and to build up a feeling of confidence that they are wanted for their own sakes, even at personal loss to the employer, as much when the holiday season is at its lowest as well as when it is at its height.
It may seem rather paradoxical, when we are in the process of repealing the Act itself, to speak of extending the benefits of the Catering Wages Act to those 100,000 employees who have so far been excluded from it, but we could say that although we are now repealing the Act we are not destroying its effects. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already indicated how that is so.
My right hon. Friend has told us that the wage scales fixed by the recent boards are to be maintained. He has told us that the inspectorate is to continue; that the membership of the boards will be virtually identical with those of the new proposed councils. I understood him to say that, in effect, the councils will have precisely the same functions and powers as the old boards, but to make quite certain of that I would ask the Parlia-

mentary Secretary whether there is, in fact, any difference at all, except in nomenclature, between a council and a board in respect of this industry.
A more significant change, perhaps, is that the Catering Wages Commission is abolished by the Bill. It had ceased to have any function. Hon. Members need only obtain from the Vote Office copies of recent Reports of the Commission to see how it had, virtually, lost heart in its own existence. In the last year for which it reported, it met only once, and in the last three years its Reports have been reduced to a single sheet of paper.
The Commission had nothing to do once it had set up the wages boards, and even the boards themselves did not report through it, but direct to the Minister. It could be said, however—and this is not meant as a disparagement of the Commission, or of its members—that it failed in one-fifth of its only allotted function; it could not agree upon a method of bringing within the scope of the Act the unlicensed residential establishments.
I come now to the form that the councils might take to deal with this particular category of hotels and boarding houses—and this is the part of my speech that takes an interrogative form. What sort of body has the Minister in mind to deal with the unlicensed establishments? I well realise, of course, that he may not be able to give me a direct answer, as the Bill only gives him the power to set up a commission of inquiry to advise him upon the form that these councils should take, but, perhaps, I could, without transgressing the rules of order, put before him some ideas on the subject.
I do not think now, as I did at first, that it would be a good idea to set up an entirely new council to deal with unlicensed establishments. On consideration, I do not think that it is a particularly good idea to make a rigid distinction between licensed and unlicensed hotels, with a separate council for each. Whether or not a hotel provides alcoholic drink makes very little difference to the way in which it is run or to the regulations which are required to govern it. What makes a difference is the size of the establishment.
I give one instance from the past. One of the recommendations of the Licensed Wages Board was that, in assessing the proper wage to be paid to a waiter, £1 a


week should be allowed for tips. In the small hotels it frequently happens that the waiter does not receive as much as £1, whereas we all know that in the larger hotels, at the height of the season, a waiter can count upon as much as £20 a week in tips, or even more. Because the Board had to deal at the same time with the very small and the very large licensed hotel, and was not allowed to distinguish between the two in the regulations it laid down, it produced a tipping rule which made very little sense.
My suggestion is that both the licensed and unlicensed hotels should be put under two committees of the same board, and that they should be divided not according to whether or not they hold a licence, but according to their size. Where is the dividing line to come between the large and small hotel? It has been put to me that the line should be drawn not, as it has been hitherto, on the basis of the number of bedrooms, but on the basis of the number of man-hours worked in the year. The figure suggested to me is 16,000 man-hours per annum. This would mean that the division would come at about six employees per establishment. For hotels employing more there would be one committee, and for those employing less another. Both committees would be grouped under a single catering wages council.
I ask the Minister not to make the regulations too complicated for the smaller hotels. At the moment, the regulations evolved by the different wages boards in respect of licensed hotels amount to 25 pages of print. It is asking too much to suppose that the hotel manager of a little unlicensed boarding house in a seaside resort should digest and follow faithfully the instructions contained in 25 closely printed pages of regulations when, hitherto, owing to the anomaly of the workings of the Act, such an establishment has not been required to follow any regulations at all. Let us at least work them gradually into the bureaucratic system, and make the rules for them as simple as possible. I suggest that in the first instance the rules should cover no more than a minimum wage and a maximum number of hours of work. Those are the two important matters for the employees.
My right hon. Friend may not know—because it does not directly affect his

Department—that it is a matter of considerable grievance among hotel keepers that at the height of the season private householders are apt to put up notice boards, or to insert advertisements in the local newspapers, asking members of the public who are on holiday to take bedrooms in their houses. The question immediately arises whether these people are pirating upon the legitimate trade of the boarding houses and hotels. The season is a very short one—sometimes no more than three or four months—and those whose business it is to provide regular boarding houses and hotels depend on the custom they can attract during those few months to make their annual income.
If many of their legitimate customers arc turned away from them in the manner described they are put at an undoubted disadvantage. It is much worse than that, because when the rating authorities are deciding at what figure a boarding house shall be assessed they do not consider whether it takes in people all the year round or only occasionally, and one finds that certain houses, which do not officially declare themselves to be boarding houses but take in visitors all through the summer months, are rated as if they were private houses. That is a natural source of grievance among those who are running boarding houses as a business.
The relevance of my remarks to the Bill lies in the fact that when the Minister decides whether to set up a wages board for unlicensed premises he will have to lay down a definition of a boarding house or hotel. He may adopt the system which I have suggested, based upon the number of man-hours worked during the year, or he may choose the old system, based upon the number of bedrooms available for letting for at least a fourmonths' period. Whichever system he chooses he will be making a definition which the valuation authorities will consider very closely, and I ask him not to exclude from any regulations he makes those so-called private houses which make a considerable annual income from taking in visitors.
I now want to raise a point which was put to me by representatives of the hotel industry at lunch-time today. They pointed out that the Bill makes no provision for the representation of the needs of the consumer upon any wages council.


Section 2 (1, b) of the Catering Wages Act does that; it provides that the Commission shall take into account the needs of the consumer whom, in this case, we would more reasonably call the visitor to the restaurant or hotel.
In the opinion of the representatives whom I saw it is very important that some such Clause should be inserted in the Bill. Otherwise, it will not be possible to argue upon a wages council that the public are liable to suffer if a certain course of action is followed. This is a reasonable request, and I would follow it up with a practical suggestion to implement it. The Minister has the power to appoint three independent members to each of the councils. Could one of those three be a direct representative of the British Holidays and Travel Association, which, more than any other existing body, could be said to represent the interests of the visitor, both foreign and domestic, to our hotels?
In this industry, as in all industries, good relations depend largely upon human relations and not Acts of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend said at the end of his speech, our industry—if I may so call it, because it is the major industry in my constituency—is bound to make an increasing contribution to our economy. The industry is doing its utmost to raise its own standards. At the moment, about 10,000 students in different branches of the trade are attending courses under the auspices of the Hotel and Catering Institute. Our hotels and restaurants are performing an invaluable service to ourselves and to our visitors. They are determined to maintain those standards and one to which they hold most strongly is that their workpeople shall be satisfied with their conditions, wages, and hours of work. There is no doubt that the Bill will make a valuable contribution to that end.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) welcomes the Bill. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was because of the scandalous conditions which existed in many sections of the hotel and catering industry before the war that the Catering

Wages Act of 1943 was introduced? The then Coalition Government considered it necessary to control the wages and working conditions of those employed in the industry.
As the Minister rightly said, there are 3½ million people in the industry whose wages are governed by wages councils. The wages of many people in the distributive trade are covered by the Wages Councils Act of 1945–48. With other hon. Members, I can recall the time when action had to be taken because of the poor working conditions and rates of wages in the distributive trade. There was a strong case for altering the pre-war conditions which obtained both in the catering trade and in the distributive trade. In 1935, 1936 and 1937 conditions were so bad and wages so poor in the distributive trade that enlightened employers joined with trade unions in requesting the Government to take action in order to arrive at agreements which would improve the standards. So one can say with truth that the 1943 legislation has done something to regulate wages and conditions.
I hope that this Bill will benefit the industry. The Minister envisages councils comprising three independent representatives and an equal number of employer and employee representatives, which will result in the representation of all sections of the catering trade. I hope that effective arbitration machinery will be devised which will result in an improvement, not only in working conditions but in the efficiency of the industry.
One of the most important aspects of the hotel industry is the service which is provided, whether by a small boarding house in Bournemouth, Eastbourne or Blackpool, or in a large hotel in the West End of London. Good service is provided by a staff which enjoys good pay and working conditions. Therefore, it is in the interests of all good employers in the industry to see that proper wages are paid to their staffs and proper living conditions provided for them. I trust that this Measure will help in that direction.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred to the importance of the contribution to our tourist trade which can be made by our hotels. Foreign currency is important to this country and visitors from abroad often judge the standard of a country by the


standard of the hotel accommodation which is provided. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch would agree when I say that before the war the working conditions for employees in the catering industry were far from good. It is my hope that this legislation will lead to more trade union organisation in the industry and the creation of proper conditions for those employed in it; and that it will contribute to increased efficiency in the industry.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Minister suggested that had the 1945 Act appeared on the Statute Book earlier there would have been no need for the 1943 legislation; but, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), we can appreciate the basic reasons for the introduction of the 1943 Act. My hon. Friend spent many years attempting to organise the workers in the catering industry. Had he wished, I am sure that my hon. Friend could have quoted specific instances of the bad conditions which he encountered and told us not only about the poor wages which were paid but also about the long hours of work to which employees in this industry were subjected and against which they had no kind of protection. Because of that, the then Coalition Government decided it was necessary to introduce the 1943 Act.
We were glad to hear that the Minister has consulted both sides of the industry and has obtained the agreement of employers and trade unions for his decision to repeal the Catering Wages Act of 1943 and to create wages councils to replace the four wages boards which have operated since 1943. It seemed peculiar that during his Second Reading speech, even before he had concluded it, the Minister should tell us that he hoped the Bill would not reach the Statute Book in its present form. He was most anxious either to get the Opposition to put down an Amendment or to threaten that he would himself amend the Bill, despite anything that anybody could do to stop him. It must be a unique experience to introduce a Bill in that way.
We were pleased to hear the point to which he was making reference, which was the issues matter which we discussed three weeks ago today. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us whether

the discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred has now reached an advanced stage. I am thinking of the timing of the Committee stage of the Bill. It would not be useful for us to go into Committee on the Bill until the right hon. Gentleman had something to enshrine in it, in the form of an Amendment which would do the thing which he obviously requires, so far as the issues matter is concerned.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), in a very interesting speech, described conditions in Bournemouth. I do not know whether we can take Bournemouth as typical of seaside hotels throughout the country. I should have thought the pattern of holiday-making was changing rapidly. One has only to see the many thousands of caravans behind motor cars going into seaside areas and to discuss with some of the hoteliers in those areas the falling off in their trade to know that the pattern of holiday-making is changing. I will not mention the areas I have in mind, but some of those holiday resorts, because of the great change I have mentioned, might shortly be qualifying for the status of development areas—I know that Bournemouth is rather different. This position should be very much in our mind when we are thinking of altering catering wages legislation, as we now are.
Only three Acts confer statutory regulation of minimum wages in this country, which the Ministry of Labour now looks after. They are the Catering Wages Act of 1943, and the Wages Councils Acts, 1945 and 1948. It is sufficiently rare for us to have any sort of statutory minimum on wages for it to be worth our while to pause and consider when we are eliminating one of those Acts. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who said that we are enshrining the basic principle in another way and that we will be retaining it. I would like to look at one or two Sections of the Catering Wages Act.
In Sections 1 and 2 we established the Catering Wages Commission itself. The Act gives certain functions to the Commission: first, to consider existing machinery for regulation of wages and conditions of employment—I stress conditions of employment—for catering workers, and secondly, in Section 4, to consider the setting up of Catering Wages Boards, and to make inquiry into means


for meeting the requirements of the public and for developing the tourist traffic. I am not sure in what we are now doing that we are effectively covering these points.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking after the wages point, but we must remember that the legislation which we are now eliminating goes much further than wages, because it demands that we should meet the requirements of the public as well as develop the tourist traffic. I wonder whether the Government are certain that they are taking powers which will enable that type of thing still to be looked after. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will develop that point a little when he replies. On all sides of the House we are concerned about this, whether employees or employers, because we are discussing a great industry and we must ensure that the public welfare is considered at the same time.
I come to the requirements of the Commission to inquire into matters affecting remuneration, conditions of employment, health and welfare of the workers. Are we, under the new dispensation, sure that health and welfare are as effectively covered as they are under the Catering Wages Act, 1943? I am not certain that we are doing it effectively. The councils themselves, in my experience of them, have been very rightly far more concerned about wage alteration and regulation and so on than with health and welfare. I know that they have the power to look at conditions as distinct from wages. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, in the main, they have looked rather at wage levels than at health and welfare under the Catering Wages Act, although these factors are as important as wages.
I would remind the House again that this legislation was brought to the House at least as much because of the bad conditions in the catering industry as because of bad wages. During the whole period that the legislation has been on the Statute Book there has been full employment. Therefore, it would be unfair to judge from results during that period. We agree, and we are very happy to know, that conditions have now improved in the catering industry. I hesitate to believe that they would have improved in this way despite this legislation had

there not been full employment throughout the whole of the British economy. I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this point and give us some assurance, if he can, that the health, welfare, conditions, etc., of catering workers will be as well protected under the proposed dispensation as they were under the 1943 legislation. Because of the nature of the industry the conditions are very important.
We clearly specified within the 1943 legislation such matters as meal times and rest periods which, in ordinary industry, are negotiated between employers and trade unions. No such specific references appear in the 1945 or the 1948 legislation, and therefore the Government should keep their mind open as to the need for Amendments in Committee to cover that kind of point as well as the wages point. Again, in the 1943 Act, Section 9 (4), and in the 1945 Act, Section 12 (1), the employment of certain types of disabled people is dealt with and provision is made for them to be employed below the statutory rates in the industry.
Whilst we are altering legislation in this field, why do we consider it necessary to retain that type of provision? Surely, we have now reached the point where many infirm people have been, and can continue to be, retrained by the Ministry of Labour. We know from experience that the vast majority of disabled people of this type, after they have undergone retraining, are quite able to do the job at least as efficiently as people not so handicapped.
I should have thought, therefore, that the provision which we are retaining to permit the employment of certain infirm or incapacitated people at below the statutory rates is now quite unnecessary. Indeed, if people so incapacitated are unable to earn the established rate within an industry, I should have thought that a clear case for saying that they should be employed by Remploy or by one of the local authorities. If they do not come within the category of people to be so employed by Remploy or by one of the local authorities, then, I should have thought, there was a good case for saying that they should receive the statutory rate prevailing in the industry. Perhaps the Minister would look at that point before we come to the Committee stage.
I want to ask a question about Section 9 (3) of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, which gives power to a worker to recover sums due from an employer without in any way prejudicing his ability to institute civil proceedings to reclaim such moneys. Where a man can show that the employer has been paying him less than the statutory wage, he can appeal under the 1943 Act, and if he sustains his case he can recover such moneys. That is done without prejudice to his right to take the case to the civil court. I understand that under the proposed new legislation we are not giving him the right to do that. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure me on this point. If we are not retaining that right in the Bill, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider the matter before we reach the Report stage.
Clause 7 of the Bill says:
Provided that it shall be a defence for a person charged under this subsection with failing to comply with a requirement to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to comply therewith.
What does that mean in practice? We know that the previous legislation enabled the worker who could show that he had been employed at rates less than the statutory rates to recover the difference. We also know that fines of £20, and so on, could be imposed in such cases. Are we altering the sense of the legislation by introducing these words into Clause 7 of the Bill? I hope that we are not. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would look at the point and either now or later tell us whether, indeed, we are in any way altering the existing provision.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said, we are not in any way opposed to the changes which the Government are now suggesting. We think that the 1943 legislation has done a pretty good job. The conditions in the catering industry now are better by far than they were prior to the legislation being placed on the Statute Book. I have suggested that other things besides the presence of this legislation have contributed to that end. I have referred to the fact that since the 1943 Act we have enjoyed full employment which has meant more rivalry for the services of people working in industry. It has also meant that the less generous type of

employer has had to pay better wages and observe better conditions in order to get the services of people. Because of all that it is, perhaps, difficult to judge what progress would have been made had the economic conditions been less favourable.
We should certainly not have allowed the Government a free hand in the matter had they not agreed to substitute for the existing wages boards the wages councils, and so on. I stress again the need to ensure that those provisions of the 1943 Act which looked after the public interest as well as the interest of employers and employees should in some way be retained, and that we should not entirely abandon our direction of the tourist industry, which, again, is dealt with in the 1943 Act but not in the 1945 or 1948 legislation. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not now abandoning all those facets of the matter which do not refer only to conditions of work within the industry. If the hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance about that we should be very grateful.
If as a result of anything we have said the Minister feels that there is reason to widen the legislation, he can be quite certain that I and my hon. Friends will be happy to assist in so widening the Bill by way of Amendments introduced on the Committee stage. With those reservations, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill, and we shall certainly not attempt to prevent it obtaining a Second Reading.

5.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): We have had a short and brisk debate, and I shall do my best not unduly to prolong it. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has raised a number of points which, perhaps, as he suggested, I and my right hon. Friend could study and which, no doubt, between us all we could examine further in Committee.
Most of the short debate has been occupied by the changes made in existing provisions and by the new provisions for the catering industry. I should like to begin what I have to say by giving wholeheartedly the assurance for which the hon. Member for Newton asked at the


end of his speech that the proposed changes in no way mean an abandoning of the industry. We believe, and I think right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite believe, that the new provisions will be even more beneficial for the industry than those which we have at the present time.
My right hon. Friend devoted a large part of his opening speech to the main object of the Bill as contained in Clause 1, which is, he said, very broadly to introduce more flexible arrangements into an industry which, I am sure we all agree, is suffering very badly from inflexibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) asked whether there was any difference between the procedure of wages councils and that of catering wages boards. There is, in fact, only one substantial difference. It is that a catering wages board has to allow 21 days for written representations to be made against proposals whereas a wages council must allow not less than 14 days. But, as my hon. Friend probably knows, a wages council can fix a longer period, and very often does. Therefore, I think that even this difference is not, in fact, very real.
My hon. Friend also asked about a wages council for those workers in the catering industry who are at present unprotected. When replying to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on 9th July last, my right hon. Friend said:
Only after an Act has been passed would it be possible to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Wages Councils Acts to consider whether a wages council should be established for workers in unlicensed hotels and boarding houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 377.]
It would be the intention of my right hon. Friend when this Bill becomes law to consider having such an inquiry if there is a demand for it, but at this stage it is plainly impossible to say when it would begin and precisely what its terms of reference would be. My right hon. Friend and I will bear in mind the suggestions made by my hon. Friend about what form that council might take. His most interesting suggestions seemed to raise a great many issues which a commission of inquiry would have to examine. As many hon. Members know, particularly after the difficulties experienced with

the unlicensed residential establishment wages board, to set up a wages council in this part of the industry would present extremely formidable problems.
Most hon. Members have made the importance of this industry very clear. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) suggested, and we entirely agree, that we should give the hotelier every help we can to develop this immensely important industry. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) thought that the Catering Wages Act had done something to regulate wages and conditions, and we all agree with that. In fact, the Act, which is now fifteen years old, has been generally accepted, with the reservations we all feel and which are the reason for this Bill.
The hon. Member for Newton raised the question of the health and welfare of catering workers. Since 1943. we have had the National Health Service introduced and the Clean Food Act, but I certainly would not say—and I am sure my right hon. Friend would not say— that we have gone as far as we might. We shall certainly consider possibilities of improvement in this field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch suggested the possibility of consumer representation on the wages councils. Under Section 2 (1, b) of the 1943 Act, which he mentioned, the Catering Wages Commission was given the duty, among others, to consider the requirements of the public. It was the duty of the Commission and never the duty of one of the wages boards, because the wages boards, like the wages councils, were essentially wage-fixing bodies consisting of representatives of the employers and workers, with independent members.
In answer to my hon. Friend, and to the hon. Member for Newton, I think I can say that the consumers' interest is very much the care of the British Travel and Holidays Association, which has taken over from the Catering Wages Commission a great deal of its earlier responsibilities. One of the reasons which led my right hon. Friend to abolish the Commission was that this responsibility for tourism and for consumers generally has been taken over by the British Travel and Holidays Association.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Blyth said about the


need not to take too static a view of wages councils. I think he recognised, as other hon. Members have, that Clause 3 provides powers for my right hon. Friend to develop the machinery of wage negotiation according to changing circumstances. I am sure that we should all welcome that, and I hope that as time goes on these powers will be used and the machinery of wage negotiation will become voluntary and more satisfactory than at present.
I wish to say a word about the possibilities of the issues procedure mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and which has been generally welcomed by the House. I am afraid I cannot be very specific, and I do not think it would be wise to try to answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for Newton. All I would say is that as fax as the issues question is concerned the probable time-table for this legislation seems likely to work out pretty well. If the hon. Member would not mind me saying no more than that, I think my right hon. Friend and I will take a fairly optimistic view of the convenience of the stage of this Bill when we can take action to meet our joint wishes.
I hope this development—if it comes off, as I sincerely hope it will—will largely meet the point which recently divided Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition and will also satisfy the strong representations made by a number of my hon. Friends and others on behalf of the National and Local Government Officers' Association and other associations.
Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Newton, who congratulated us—I think I may say that—on announcing our intention to amend the Bill even before it has had a Second Reading, that on this side of the House we are never complacent. We always believe we can improve on our work, and that, I think, we shall do by the time this Bill becomes law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to wages councils, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under section twenty-two of the Wages Councils Act, 1945, and any fees or allowances payable under the said Act of the present Session to the members of any committee appointed at the request of a wages council.—[Mr. R. Wood.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF RESERVE LIABILITY OF PERSONS BEGINNING NATIONAL SERVICE, OR SERVICE IN LIEU, AFTER 1948.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We have the advantage this afternoon of the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. It might be advisable at this stage, in view of what was said during the Second Reading of the Bill, if we could have some information from him about naval reserves. It is true that in his winding-up speech on Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the naval reserves were rather low. I have read the speeches which were made and looked at the figures and I am wondering whether we could have an assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary that he is satisfied that those reserves are, in fact, sufficient.
The only other question I want to put is in connection with the discussion which took place on Second Reading in reference to this Clause. It seemed that there was some doubt in the minds of hon. Members about the reserves actually covered by the Bill. There was some discussion on that and there seemed to be some misconception about it. I was hoping that today the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us exactly what the position is so that the Committee and the country may know what reserves will be available after the Bill comes into effect. If the hon. Gentleman can set out the number of reserves which the country will have, taking into account those who have done their National Service, and so on, and the new reserves available under this Measure, that would be useful. If the Parliamentary Secretary is ready to reply to my question I will give way to him.

5.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): I was present during the Second Reading

debate when the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) spoke for the Opposition. It is not that the naval reserves as a whole are low. What my hon. Friend meant was that the number of naval reserves involved in the Bill was relatively small. In other words, the group which we are taking in now, which is the equivalent of the Army Group N, consists of about 17,000 men in the Royal Navy, but we have over and above that in our own Regular reserves.
The Royal Fleet Reserve is the first line; then we have the retired officers and pensioners; then the R.N.R., which is the amalgamation of the old R.N.R. and the old R.N.V.R., now forming one volunteer reserve; then we have the R.N.S.R.—the Royal Naval Supplementary Reserve—and, finally, the R.N.S.R. (Special), into which group the 17,000 reservists will go.
With regard to the wider question, all the Services have their own Regular reserves. I have just given the titles of the naval reserves. The Army has its own regular reserve organisation, and so has the Royal Air Force. Therefore, none of the Regular reserves is in any way affected by the provisions of the Bill. All that we have been doing is to relieve from membership of the Reserve those who have served in the forces from the outbreak of the war to the end of 1948.
Those people are now released from all liability, but the Bill also extends membership of the Reserve until 1964 for those who have entered the service of the colours from 1949 onwards. The point is that it excludes those up to 1948 and includes those from 1949 onwards, but there is no effect on the main Regular reserve of any of the three Services.

Mr. Steele: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has said what he has, but perhaps he will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) mentioned during the Second Reading that it would be useful if we could have a White Paper setting out the various categories of reserves. I thought there was a great deal of misunderstanding during the Second Reading debate and that hon. Members did not properly understand the categories of reserves in each of the Services and the numbers in those reserves. If my hon. Friend's suggestion has not been considered since


Second Reading, perhaps further consideration might be given to it so that on Third Reading we might have an answer.

Mr. Allan: The Services are notable for the speed at which they act, but I doubt whether that information can be made available for the Third Reading of this Bill. However, I shall be very glad to mention it to the Secretary of State for War, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here tonight, and has apologised for his absence. If it is possible, I am sure that we shall be glad to meet the wishes which have been expressed. I doubt very much, however, whether it would be in the public interest to publish the figures. I am not sure about that. There would have to be consultation, but we will try to meet the 'wishes which have been expressed.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I sought same sort of general idea as to what the Navy wanted reserves for and for what it might in certain conceivable circumstances use them for. We tried on Second Reading to get some information on those lines from the Secretary of State for War, but we were almost entirely unsuccessful.
I see that the Under-Secretary of State is now in his place. Is he in a position to give us a little information? The Army is asking that a reserve liability should be taken off certain people but added to others. In other words, it is asking for a block of reserves. What does it want them for? Does it contemplate that these additional reserves should, in the event of catastrophe, be mobilised locally for Civil Defence, rescue and salvage? Does it contemplate that they should be formed into units for transport abroad, which seems, in modern circumstances, a somewhat improbable operation? How is it fitting this reserve conception into the new professional Army which is being created? These are questions on which we did not succeed in getting an answer from the Secretary of Stare for War, and I very much hope that we may have a reply now.

Mr. Allan: I think that the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary did their best to answer the questions. The Group N Reserve, as it is called in the Army, will be required only in global war. It is not part of the pattern of the

normal Regular forces of the country. It is available only if there is a global war in which we have to have a general call-up. I do not think that I can add to that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked about the mobilisation plan. The Secretary of State said there was a general mobilisation plan into which the Group N reservists would be fitted.

Mr. Paget: I had understood that the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) had been appointed to the War Office. Am I mistaken in that? Was it to the Whip's department?

Mr. Allan: I am speaking for the Government on this occasion, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War is here to support me and give me any advice that he can.

Mr. Paget: Is not the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone allowed to open his mouth when simple questions are asked about the Army? Much as I admire my own Service, I find its answering for the Army eminently unsatisfactory.
We are now told that the Reserve is for global war. I am profoundly interested about the conception of the Reserve in global war. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who, I understand, is speaking for all three Services, can tell us whether he imagines that he can transport and land reserves in global war and when subject to atomic attack.
I had thought that the idea that we could mobilise, train, organise and transport reserves in global war had been written off in the strategic conception before last, if not the last but two. I thought that it was regarded as obsolete. Has it now been brought back to life? If that is not the conception, and I do not think that it is, can the War Office—and it is from the War Office that I want an answer tell us what its conception for this sort of Reserve is, when it is to be available only in total war?
Although I have not discovered it in any White Paper, I believe that there is a function for reserve forces, provided that they have their arms right beside them and provided they have an automatic mobilisation plan, which means moving people no further than their local village. In the event of an atomic attack, civil government will cease to


exist, the survival of the country will depend on a military organisation, and the only effective means of carrying on any war being a purely local defence.
Does this sort of Reserve arise from that sort of conception? Has the Army thought of some method whereby it can mobilise these reserves in circumstances in which all centres of communication will have ceased to exist and in which those reserves can be taken to their arms only if that does not involve their passing any communication centre? Has the War Office thought of an organisation which, of its nature, will have to be local? Does it contemplate some form of defence on those lines? If the answers to those questions are, "Yes", then I can see a purpose for this total war Reserve. If the answers are not "Yes", I can see no point in the reserves.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I thank the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for his interesting speech. Especially when one is new to an office, it is very interesting to get the views of so distinguished a strategist and Parliamentarian.
It is perfectly true that at this stage the mobilisation plans and the general concept of what a global war would mean for this country are in the process of being developed and worked out. I am certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks will be of great interest. With many of them, I personally agree.
Whatever conception one has, there is bound to be a need for a large body of controlled and disciplined men in the event of a total emergency. I think, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that at this stage it is impossible to work out the full details of deployment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's main contention, that a large body of men would be necessary, is accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and comforted by what he has said. However, is it not rather a peculiar horse-before-the-cart method, which is not untypical of the Government, that they should ask the House to impose a large obligation on a large number of men before they have made

up their mind about what they intend to do with them? Would not a more normal process have been to decide the mobilisation plan which was wanted and the number of men needed to accomplish it, and then to come to the House to ask for that number of men to be made available? After seven years of Government, right hon. Gentlemen opposite should have thought out what they intend to do with reserves in the event of atomic war and how they intend to mobilise such a reserve.
5.45 p.m.
It is only right that one should observe and draw attention to something which is all of a piece with the appalling muddle into which defence has fallen during the last seven years, a muddle which, after the expenditure of about £5,000 million, has left us as defenceless as we were at Suez and more defenceless than we have ever been in our history.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman is, again, almost obliquely right. He is right by implication, but he is wrong in his invective. What we are proposing to do is simply to reduce the number of people on whom the obligation falls from 3½ million to 650,000. His first point is thus met.
The hon. and learned Gentleman then said that there was a demand for these men without there being a detailed and published plan. I point out that we are now taking these powers because our present powers lapse next year and that the new obligation will not become effective until June of next year. There would thus be plenty of time between now and June to make a plan, supposing that there were not a plan, for the much smaller number of men who will be involved.

Mr. Paget: In that case, would not June have been the time to bring in the Bill? The Government have known perfectly well that their powers would lapse. Why have they not thought out what they would do when that happened? Clearly, they have not done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

PETROL STATION, FRINTON-ON- SEA (APPEAL)

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: It is good to have this opportunity of raising the subject of a petrol station, especially after the noise and filibustering which occurred the week before last, and also to be able to have all the time until half-past ten to discuss the subject, although I hope that I shall be able to deal with it in slightly less time than that.
It was most unfortunate that last Friday week the Opposition prevented me from raising this question of a petrol station in Kirby Road near Frinton-on-Sea, especially when what is at issue is not so much a decision about a petrol station, important locally as it is, but the important political principle, Does the man in Whitehall know best? "I cannot believe that my hon. Friend will not be considerate when he has studied the full facts of this case again. I know that he deals with a great number of these cases and that no decision has ever been revoked before, but it is perfectly possible for him, technically, to do this.
I am most grateful to have this second opportunity of raising what I regard as certain most disturbing features concerning the judgment of the Minister in going against the advice of the Frinton Urban District Council and, indeed, the advice of his own inspector, in allowing the appeal of the Esso Petroleum Company for this petrol station. The Minister knows that this is the second time within a year that I have challenged his judgment in going against the advice of the local authorities on the spot. I do not challenge the Minister's authority to override his inspector's recommendation. What I criticise is his judgment in doing so in this instance, and the manner in which he did it.
The inspector saw the site and heard all the arguments. For my part, after reading the inspector's report and the advice given by the Minister in his own circular No. 25/58, dated 1st April, 1958, I an amazed at the Minister's decision. Indeed, after the decision, many people

asked themselves whether we had not been made "April fools" by the Minister's circular of 1st April. The circular was issued in reply to my Question in the House on 1st April asking for clarification of policy regarding the exercise of the Minister's control over the siting and establishment of new garages. It is worth while recording that the Parliamentary Secretary said to me on that occasion that I should find
that the situation will be much improved when this guidance is followed "—
that is, the guidance in the circular, This was after I had asked him, in a supplementary question, whether he was
aware of the concern of some small garage men because of the action of some of the larger petrol companies. Can he take steps to ensure that a garage war does not develop between small and large garages, and that adequate protection is given against monopolistic tendencies?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1958; Vol. 585. c. 1017–8.]
In paragraph 9 of the circular to which I have referred the Minister states:
If no strong case is made out on grounds of traffic need, then planning objections may become decisive.
No strong case could be made out on grounds of traffic need for the Esso Company, as there were no fewer than ten stations in the area already, while others are available within a comparatively short distance. In the circular, even in respect of new by-passes and roads, it is said that the Minister of Transport takes the view that, normally, a petrol station should be unnecessary on a stretch of road less than twelve miles long. Yet, in six miles, for traffic leaving Frinton and Walton, there are already two petrol stations. If the Minister goes against planning considerations, he must surely follow the instructions in his own circular. Did he do this on the question of need, after so summarily dismissing planning considerations?
The inspector's views on this question of need were not mentioned in the Minister's summary of his inspector's views contained in his letter of 7th October to the Esso Company, saying why he had allowed the appeal. Why was this point overlooked? Why did the Minister not mention this question of need in reply to my Written Question in the House last week? This important consideration, which preceded the inspector's final recommendation, was not even mentioned by the Minister. Why did the


Minister try to stifle this important factor? This is really the crux of the case.
The inspector said quite clearly and distinctly in his report that, had evidence been produced to show that there was need for the station, it might have countered the argument against the proposal. But the inspector said:
No such need was shown",
and there was no evidence of congestion at the existing stations. Quite rightly, the inspector had paid attention to the advice of the Minister in his own circular, and, where need had not been established, he had made planning considerations decisive. How the Minister could possibly overrule his own inspector, even on planning considerations alone, is beyond my comprehension.
The Minister has said that he did not visit the site, nor, indeed, had any people from his Ministry visited the site after the inspector had reported. But did he obtain any other local advice? Surely, where planning considerations are concerned, the council's views are extremely important. Why has the Minister not paid more attention to the local council? Surely, it is not true that the Minister follows the principle that the man in Whitehall knows best.
I claim that the inspector was quite right in the recommendation he gave, supporting the local council, even on planning considerations alone and not taking into account the question of need. He realised, quite correctly, that the proposal for a new petrol station conflicted very materially with the council's planning policy, which, indeed, had the support of the area planning officer.
Should the present appeal be allowed",
said the inspector when he wrote his report,
it would establish a precedent for allowing other developments in this gap, as the grounds for refusing residential development were the same, for houses would also close the gap",
and add to the traffic problem here. He went on:
I think that the maintenance of the gap between Frinton and Kirby Cross is an important planning consideration and is most desirable.
I cannot, unfortunately, point out in the time available to me—

Mr. Ede: Oh.

Mr. Ridsdale: If I had known what would happen and had been able to study and prepare it further, I could have brought out a few more of the points which seem to be most significant, but I will concentrate on those which are particularly vital. There are many strange ways in which the inspector's report seems to have been misinterpreted by the Minister. For instance, the Minister says that the effect of traffic flow is likely to be small, yet the inspector, in his report, says:
Traffic congestion arises from the junction at the level crossing".
He goes on to say:
Evidence shows that the position is bad today…. Indications are that with more frequent train services and the steady increase in traffic, the position would grow worse.
I ought to know, because I often get stuck at this very point myself. In a few years' time, the traffic will become worse, not better. There will be a need to make a new entrance to Frinton at the very point where the Minister proposes to allow the petrol station. He will then be contravening the siting instruction he gave in Circular No. 25/58, that a petrol station should not be too close to a side road connection, junction or roundabout. Indeed, this road would run right through the proposed new petrol station. I was surprised that this point was not brought out at the inquiry.
I must say that I am in no way satisfied with the Minister's decision. There certainly seems to be no reason for the Minister to go against all local feeling as well as the report of his own inspector. I have received countless letters on the subject, and not one of them has been on the side of the Minister. I should have thought it reasonable to expect that if the Minister were to go against all local advice, at least he would consult with me, especially in view of my past representations and some of the past conversations that we have had on the matter, and that, in any case, greater consideration would have been given to the arguments. No wise action like this seems to have been taken.
I am most disturbed that paragraph 59 of the inspector's report seems to have been deliberately ignored by the Minister. Paragraph 59 reads:
Had evidence been produced to show there was great need for this station it might have


countered the arguments against the proposal. No such need was shown, and there was no evidence of congestion at the existing station.
Then followed the inspector's recommendation. Yet the Minister did not mention this in his letter to the Esso Petroleum Company. I am in no way surprised that my constituents are asking, first, whether it will be the policy of the Minister to allow all applications for new petrol stations regardless of what local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectors say, and. secondly, whether the application in my constituency is favoured for some reason known to the Minister but not to the general public. These are serious questions which my constituents are asking and for which they justifiably seek a reply.
Finally, it is not a principle of mine to wish to interfere with the ordinary laws of supply and demand, save where monopolistic tendencies arise. I believe in good, healthy competition. However, I have been very gravely disturbed by the two recent cases in my division which I have brought to the notice of the Minister. I trust that in what seems to be a petrol war developing between the small garages and the larger companies, the Minister will ensure that due regard is paid to the question of need and will ensure that wherever possible a fair "do" is given to the small garage proprietor.
I submit that the Minister in making his decision paid no attention to the question of need. He carefully did not mention the inspector's view in his letter of 7th October, when he gave his reasons for allowing the appeal, or, indeed, in reply to my Question in the House last week. Indeed, the omission of this point, bearing in mind what the inspector said in his report and the advice of the Minister in his circular, causes this case, to say the least, to have a sinister ring.
It is because I am not satisfied that justice has been done in this case that I ask the Minister to consider it again and to revoke his decision. If he is not able to give a satisfactory reply I want to impress upon him the very strong feelings that have been aroused. Unless my hon. Friend is able to give a satisfactory reply this evening, I am sure that a demand will be made for an inquiry into how the strange decision of the Minister came

about. I can find no sound arguments whatsoever to support the Minister's decision to overrule his own inspector and the local council in this manner.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not stand on his prestige, but will show that his mind is flexible and will honestly admit that a mistake has been made, and will show that he is able to put it right. If not, he will be flouting all local views and, in practice, saying very dictatorially that the man in Whitehall knows best without having made any further inquiries when he made his final decision. I appeal to him to revoke his decision.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: Normally, I would be among the first in the House to welcome the fact that the Minister had shown such independence of mind and had stood by a decision which he believed to be right, even against the advice of his own inspector, whom, I understand, he sent to the site to make a report for him. Since this is such a welcome sign, it would be very interesting if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some of the reasons lying behind it, and tell the House why, having gone to the trouble of asking for recommendations and reports, his own decision apparently goes right against them.
I do not hold a brief in this matter, but I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) said. The House will agree that, from the information we have had from my hon. Friend, he has a very strong case. These matters undoubtedly cause a great deal of concern in local areas if the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister responsible for making a decision of this kind do not sufficiently go into the reasons lying behind the ruling. I hope that my hon. Friend will give further emphasis to his own independence of spirit by revoking the decision or, at any rate, causing a serious inquiry to be made into it.
My hon. Friend referred to a petrol war between some of the bigger companies and the smaller petrol stations. Again, I emphasise that I have no brief for the big petrol companies, but I have had some dealings with them and I know that this is a matter which has caused a good deal of concern up and down the country. A man may be established in a


small business, perhaps a sort of "free house", selling a number of different brands of petrol, and then along come other mammoth organisations of the main petrol distribution companies who seek to take him over. I know that the big companies are most concerned in case it should be thought that they are trying to do the little man down, as my hon. Friend said. If there is any possibility of that being said in this instance, I am sure that the petroleum company concerned would be only too anxious to prevent it being said. If a petrol station is already serving an area sufficiently well, is there any need for another?
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not stand firm on his decision, but, having already gone against the advice of his inspector, will now go against his own earlier opinion and revoke the decision which he has made.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I wish to detain the House for only a couple of minutes. As a neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), I want to add emphasis to what he said.
There is tremendous local disquiet at the extraordinary way—that is the only word for it—that the Minister has acted in this case. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) that independence of mind on the part of a Minister is something which should be welcomed, but when it is independence which goes against all apparent facts and common sense it is extremely difficult to understand and it puts myself, as an Essex Member, in an awkward position in trying to defend some of the things that the Minister does. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some good reasons for the decision, which has been taken without any justification on the facts, as was explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich.
The disturbance which there has been in the public mind and in the local Press is such that this matter must be reconsidered, with all aspects taken into account. If it is necessary for the Minister to change his decision, that may be unpalatable, but fortunately, in the head of that Department, we have an extremely courageous Minister, and I have no doubt

that the Parliamentary Secretary, having heard the views put forward by my hon. Friend, will convey those views to the Minister, and that the Minister, being the courageous man that he is, will be prepared to alter his decision.

6.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I should like, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on his tenacity in pursuing this subject. He was, if I may use the expression, rather edged out quite recently, but he has continued to ventilate this grievance in one way and another.
When I say "grievance", I well understand that he regards it as a wrong decision and that it is also so regarded as an unhappy decision by many people in his constituency. My hon. Friend referred to the doctrine, "The man in Whitehall always knows best". Let me say at once that in my view the man in Whitehall does not always know best, but sometimes he knows a little more than is commonly attributed to him.
My hon. Friend raised a number of considerations which affect this planping appeal. The first was that the decision in this case is very unpopular locally and that everybody thinks that it is wrong. I am very sorry, as is my right hon. Friend, that that should be the case, but I assure him that the decision here was taken after all the relevant facts had been taken into account, including, of course, the petition which was signed by a considerable number of people against the petrol station and was submitted at the public inquiry.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that in these planning appeals the case for and against the application is often very finely balanced. That is bound to be so, in the nature of the case, because the appeal and the public inquiry take place only after a decision has been taken against the applicant by the local planning authority. Clearly, the appellant who goes to the trouble of making an appeal thinks that he has a reasonably good case. On the other side, the local planning authority, because it has turned down the application, also thinks that it has a good case. In the last resort it is


for my right hon. Friend to decide whether the development should be allowed or not.
We all recognise that all planning, especially planning restriction—which planning often amounts to—tends to act as a brake upon enterprise of one kind and another, and whatever my hon. Friend may think about the decision in this case I feel that we must most studiously avoid the assumption that it is my right. hon. Friend's mission to frustrate development whenever people wish to develop, whether it be petrol stations, housing, industry, or anything else. That, I think, would be very wrong.
We have also to bear in mind that all decisions on planning appeals, whether they are intrinsically right or wrong, are bound to be thought to be wrong by some people. They are matters upon which it is impossible to please everybody. It is perfectly true that in this case—and I agree that this is a rather unusual feature—the recommendation of the inspector who took the public inquiry was not upheld by my right hon. Friend.
I ought to make it clear that my right hon. Friend is not bound to accept the views or the recommendations of his inspectors. The responsibility for decisions in these matters is that of the Minister and not that of the inspector. As I said once before in the House, that is a very heavy responsibility, because appeals are running at the rate of about 8,000 a year, and each of those has to be considered as an individual appeal on its merits.
I should like to say a word or two on the details of this case, because it is only fair that I should do so. The position which faced my right hon. Friend was that the inspector who took the inquiry formed the view that the site itself was intrinsically a good site for a petrol filling station, from the point of view of sight lines and visibility. He did not think that the petrol station would be likely seriously to affect the flow of traffic on the road, nor did he think that the lack of main drainage was an obstacle, because the premises could be adequately drained to a cesspool. He agreed with the council about the importance of preserving the undeveloped gap between Frinton and Kirby Cross.

For those reasons he recommended that the appeal should be turned down.
The only point of difference between the inspector and my right hon. Friend was whether a petrol filling station on this site would be an undue encroachment on what is a relatively narrow belt of undeveloped land between Frinton and Kirby Cross.

Mr. Ridsdale: My hon. Friend says that the only difference between the inspector and the Minister was on a planning question, but surely the difference was over the question of need, too. Will my hon. Friend refer to this when he replies to the questions which I asked?

Mr. Bevins: Most certainly. I had intended to do so.
I was saying that the major point of difference between the inspector and my right hon. Friend was whether a filling station on this site would be an undue encroachment on the relatively narrow belt of undeveloped land between Frinton and Kirby Cross. On this point, my right hon. Friend shared the view of the local planning authority, which was also the view of the inspector, about the importance of keeping this gap open to prevent these communities from coalescing one with the other. On the other hand, he had to bear in mind the fact that this appeal site was situated at the extreme end of this gap and that it formed a wedge between the road and the railway not far from Frinton Station, right on the edge of the town. Viewed from one point of view, therefore, this site was not open country; it was right at one edge of this gap between two local communities.
It was eventually decided that the objection on this score which had been taken both by the local planning authority and by the inspector, and which is the only planning objection which emerged from the inquiry, was not sufficiently strong to justify the refusal of permission to develop. I entirely agree that that was a matter of judgment. My hon. Friend would presumably have taken the other view had he been in my right hon. Friend's place, but it so happens that my right hon. Friend took that view because he did not regard the erection of a filling station on this site as being opposed to the interests of amenity.
I want to say a word on the question of need, which has been raised by my


hon. Friend. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand quite well what are the purposes of town and country planning. I think that' they will agree that the question of specific need—that is, industrial need, or the need for a petrol station, or the need for a light industry, or a heavy industry in a certain situation—is not, broadly speaking, a planning consideration at all; that is, if the matter is viewed solely from the point of view of need.
On the other hand, there can be cases which, from a purely planning point of view, are marginal planning cases; viewed solely from the point of view of amenity the case may be so evenly balanced that the Minister may feel that, because there is a glut of petrol stations in an area, this is a marginal consideration which might weigh against allowing a particular piece of development. That is the extent to which need enters into this matter. It is largely a marginal consideration and it was frankly because on grounds of amenity and planning my right hon. Friend thought that this appeal ought to be upheld that he took this particular course.
I want to add that my right hon. Friend takes a very close interest indeed in all these planning matters, including the masses of appeals which come into the Ministry, in spite of the fact that he has one or two other preoccupations on his mind. In the exercise of his statutory function, the Minister and his officials are indivisible and that cannot be otherwise.

Mr. Ede: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by his statement that the Minister and his officials are indivisible, because there appears to have been a distinct division between them?

Mr. Bevins: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman means in the sense of the inspector and my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Bevins: That is true. The right hon. Gentleman would not, in that context, expect my right hon. Friend to accept in every case the recommendation of an inspector who conducts an inquiry. That would be quite wrong.

Mr. Ede: I think that the Minister ought to be able to give some good, solid reasons why he goes against the report of the inspector.

Mr. Bevins: That is what I have been seeking to do. I have been trying to show that in my right hon. Friend's view the inspector did not attach the right weight to the amenity aspect of this appeal. While the inspector thought that it would be wrong to allow a petrol station at the edge of this gap, my right hon. Friend took the other view.
It sometimes happens that a Minister of Housing and Local Government, or, in the past, a Minister of Town and Country Planning, in certain circumstances has regard to wider considerations of planning than perhaps the inspector who took the inquiry at the time. Broadly speaking, that is sometimes why there are differences of opinion.
I will pass on quite shortly, to the final question of the so-called war between the petrol companies. I do not know anything about that. What I do know is that any allegation that my right hon. Friend or his Ministry is too partial or too tender towards the big petrol companies or, for that matter, towards applications for petrol filling stations is not supported by the facts. We get a very considerable number of petrol station appeals and we dismiss far more of those appeals than we allow. In 1957, the last year for which I have figures, 494 appeals were dismissed, only 78 were allowed.
I would add that in all cases the identity of the appellant does not affect the issue. It does not matter to my right hon. Friend or his advisers whether the appellant happens to be one of the big petrol companies or one of the little men. Very often we have no means of knowing whether the appellant in a planning appeal has one of the big oil companies behind him or not. In any case, we are not interested to know, because we try to judge these cases according to planning considerations, as of course, is our duty.
My hon. Friend finally argued the question whether my right hon. Friend was prepared, having given a decision in this case, to revoke that decision. I think he knows that my right hon. Friend has personally looked at this case and has decided that, having given a decision, it would be wrong to revoke it. I think that I should say, in fairness to the appellant in this case—I do not know who he is; I have forgotten the name and I am not interested—that in these cases, once a decision has been given, it would very


often be wrong and unfair to revoke that decision from the point of view of the person whose appeal has been allowed, as it has been allowed in this case.
In spite, therefore, of the plausible argument deployed by my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on this side of the House, I cannot hold out any hope of revocation. I hope, however— I say this to my hon. Friend in all sincerity—that what he has said will be helpful in the future. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend, who has followed this case personally, will study all that he has said and that if he thinks it necessary to supplement what I have said this afternoon he will do so.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The last two or three sentences of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary are among the most astounding I have heard in this House. He enters the plea "Not guilty" and then adds, "I will not do it again."

Mr. Bevins: No. I did not say anything of the sort, nor did I imply anything of the sort, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Ede: Let me put it like this. The hon. Gentleman says: "I will be very careful before I do it again."
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and to those of his two supporters. I thought that the hon. Member for Harwich gave an indication that there was very strong local feeling on the matter. I gather that had been voiced at the inquiry, but what the hon. Gentleman did not deal with in his reply, which was as usual very lucid—and he put up the best case that could be put up —was to what extent the feelings of local private individuals influence the Minister in cases of this kind.
I did not follow the argument that because there is a road and a railway running alongside the road it does not matter very much what goes in between the two. I would have thought that if a railway was in any way a detriment to the amenities, it would not follow that the amenities would be improved by a modern petrol station between the road and the railway. I know from my own experience, going back in these

matters to the time when the first Minister of Town and Country Planning had to deal with them, that I even went so far on one occasion as to have an interview with him, which was far more satisfactory in its results than the intervention of the hon. Member for Harwich appears to have been in this case.
It is a very disappointing thing to local residents, who appreciate even a small gap between two built-up areas, to find that one of these stations has made its appearance and that what happened before town and country planning enabled people to protect their amenities has been worsened by what goes on now. I have given evidence at more than one of the inquiries held by the Minister's inspectors in areas in which I am interested. It is a very great disappointment to people who come forward with no other than the public interest to serve, who are not themselves involved in the petrol war but are merely anxious to keep in the neighbourhood in which they live some open tracts of roadway—on which these stations in seaside resorts are a very great nuisance on bank holidays and Sundays —to see them cluttered with traffic. Judging by what the hon. Member for Harwich said, this is a place where that kind of thing needs careful attention, and it should have had some weight with the Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary is now becoming quite skilled at answering the easy questions and leaving the hard ones unanswered, in the hope that the general atmosphere of good will which he exudes on such occasions as this will make people forget that there were some other arguments which he found it convenient to ignore. The only thing with which I agreed in what the Parliamentary Secretary said is that once a decision by the Minister has been given it is well nigh impossible to expect that it can be revoked. Obviously, the appellant gets the decision he wants, and he then proceeds with plans and with carrying those plans into effect. He is bound to have incurred some expense in carrying out what is now his right, and, possibly, in being represented at the inquiry and in having his case presented to the inspector.
I hope that the Minister will realise the extent to which a decision of his may be not so much against the local council as against the weight of local public opinion, which is merely anxious to preserve the


amenities of the district in which the people coming forward reside. The disappointment in such cases is very deep, very keenly felt, and is very discouraging to people who, out of sheer interest in the public weal, incur the difficulties and sometimes the odium of appearing at an inquiry and giving their evidence to the inspector. I could have hoped that on this occasion the Minister would have reached a different decision from the one he did, but I shall take heart, not from the repentance of the Parliamentary Secretary at this decision, but from his assurance that the feeling expressed here will weigh with the Minister in some other case on which he has not yet heard the evidence.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I wish to raise another matter. I am sorry that I have not had time to let the Minister know the matter I wish to raise.

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise another matter, and as I wish to speak on this matter which is now before the House, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be for the convenience of the House if you would allow me to speak first.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, any hon. Member who catches my eye on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House is entitled to be heard if he raises a proper subject—one which does not involve legislation, and so on; but there is a convention which past Speakers have mentioned and whose breach they have deprecated, namely, that an hon. Member ought not to raise a subject without notice and without having a Minister or someone else here to reply.
The convention proceeds from the idea that the House should be placed in possession of both sides of any grievance. There are obviously disadvantages in raising a new subject without securing the attendance of a Minister. That is a convention. I can only deprecate it if it is not observed on this occasion. I have no power under Standing Orders to prevent from speaking an hon. Member who has caught my eye.

Mr. Short: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not wish to prevent my hon. Friend from speaking. The only point I was putting to you was

that it would perhaps be for the convenience of the Minister who is present, and of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who raised the question of a petrol station, and who would wish to hear all the debate on it, if I spoke before my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who obviously wishes to raise some other matter. That was the only point I was putting to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). I merely used that caveat in the case of a Member raising a matter without securing the attendance of a Minister to reply to him. I can only say that I deprecate its being done.

Mr. Grey: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it help the House if I were to relinquish my right now in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short)? What would be the position if I did that? There is the difficulty that I cannot be called twice in one debate in the House, and there is not a Minister here to answer the points I wish to raise.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member, as is the case with my hon. Friend, to sit down and give way to another hon. Member and to let him make a speech and then to take the Floor again? Is that in order? I imagine that it is.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is it the case, Sir, that an hon. Member who is called to speak, and who speaks, though without making a speech, has the right to speak again later?

Mr. Speaker: I said that an hon. Memer is quite in order in speaking on the Adjournment once he has caught my eye. That is the legal position. I merely mentioned the convention, which has been observed, that an hon. Member ought not to raise topics without giving notice to the Minister concerned and securing his attendance, so that the House can be placed in possession of both sides of the story. However, I have called the hon. Member for Durham, who is entitled to speak. Mr. Grey.

NORTHERN REGION HOSPITAL BEDS (WAITING LISTS)

Mr. Charles Grey: I confess, as I did before, that I am sorry that I have not had the time to telephone the Department concerned in the matter which I wish to raise. It concerns the Minister of Health, and it is a matter very near and dear to me. I questioned the Minister on Monday about
the approximate number of persons waiting for hospital beds in the Northern Region; and how many of these have been waiting for three months, six months, nine months and for longer periods, respectively.
I thought that that was a very important Question to put. I got this Answer from the Parliamentary Secretary:
Information in the precise form requested is not available, but of the 24,000 people awaiting admission on 31st August about 13,000 had been waiting less than 4 months, 6,000 between four and 12 months and 5,000 over a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December. 1958; Vol. 597, c. 29.]
That number, 5,000 over a year, is rather fantastic, and I am taking the opportunity now to bring this very serious position to the notice of the Minister and to ask that something must be done about it. While I have not precise information about the number of private beds there are in the various hospitals in the Northern Region, I think that it would be an excellent opportunity for the Minister himself to consider, if there are a number of private beds which are not occupied, whether they ought to be used for the people who have been on the waiting list for a long time.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) to spoil the rhythm of the debate which we have

been developing by coming into the debate and speaking on another subject? If he wished to speak on this point, could he not have waited until other hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject which I raised had made their points? If I were given the opportunity of making some points in reply, the hon. Member for Durham could then raise his subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) would not be entitled to make a second speech on the motion for the Adjournment on a subject on which he has already spoken. As to the rest of what he has just said, I have already said enough on the subject. There is no more to say, and I would not wish to waste the time of the House.

Mr. Grey: I assure the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) that I do not intend to speak for very long. We can raise matters of this kind on the Motion for the Adjournment and I make no apology for doing so now. I dare say that the subject on which the hon. Member for Harwich spoke is important, but there is nothing more important than the issue which I have raised.
I repeat that when about 5,000 people have been waiting for hospital beds for more than a year it is time that the matter was brought to the Minister's attention. I am doing so now, and I hope that an hon. Member opposite will convey my words to the Minister. It is incredible that such a large proportion of people in the Northern Region should be waiting for so long to go into hospital. It would help, but would not solve the problem, if the situation were relieved by using unoccupied private beds, but the real answer is to build more hospitals and I appeal to an hon. Member opposite to convey that message to the Minister of Health.

PETROL STATIONS

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: At the outset, I must say that I know nothing whatever of the details of the local problem to which the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) has drawn attention tonight, but I have listened carefully to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden). Nor am I very greatly concerned about the Minister's decision to override the local authority's refusal to give planning permission. That must happen from time to time. I do not think that a local authority necessarily always holds the balance between all the contending factors in these cases and arrives at the right decision.
I used to be a member of a planning committee, and I think that I am right in saying that a planning committee is precluded from considering certain very relevant factors which the Minister would bear in mind. Therefore, like the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, I am not greatly concerned about the fact that the Minister over-rode the local authority. What I am concerned about is the squeezing out of the small garage and petrol station proprietors by the bigger petrol firms. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this towards the end of his speech but, as far as I know, it has not been raised in the House for a considerable time. It is a very real issue.
I would be the first to admit that the service stations of Esso and of the other big petrol firms which are springing up like mushrooms in this country and throughout Europe give excellent service. I often travel right across Europe with a caravan and I know what wonderful service Esso and all the other petrol stations give in the way of washing facilities and the rest. But I do not see why I or any other motorist should be forced to buy a certain brand of petrol. That is just about what it is coming to at present.
I do not see why the small man in the petrol business should be forced out by the giant petrol firms. It is happening all over this country, and in France and other countries. I could quote many cases, given time for a little research. There are many small garage proprietors

who are being forced to close their garages because planning permission has been given to build a large petrol station nearby. We have been told that one of the merits of capitalism is that it encourages competition, that it delivers the goods better, in greater variety, and more cheaply than any other system; but it seems to me that competition is being eliminated over the whole field not only of distribution but of production as well, and the Tory Government are apparently assisting in the process. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us of 78 cases in which planning permission has been given by his right hon. Friend. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but surely when planning permission is given it is always known whether the petrol station will belong to a big firm.

Mr. Bevins: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that very often that is just what is not known, because often large petrol companies do not make planning applications in their own name. They make them through agents.

Mr. Short: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but giving planning permission involves examining plans, and I cannot envisage plans for an Esso station being put before anybody without its being known that it is an Esso station. The name Esso is plastered all over these stations. I accept that the fact that the petrol station belongs to a large distributor is not a factor that is taken into account. Nevertheless, this process goes on all the time.
If this process continues in distribution and production, and the country's economy eventually gravitates into a few monopolies, it will make the eventual establishment of a Socialist economy very much easier. Karl Marx pointed that out long ago. But while we have to live under a capitalist system, we might as well enjoy any merits that it is supposed to have. The odd situation today is that a Tory Government, while never at any time losing the opportunity to proclaim the merits of competition, proceed by their own administrative action to abolish it. However, as I have said, as long as we have to live under the system we may as well enjoy its merits.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to look very carefully in future at any appeals that come before him concerning a large


petrol station. It is very regrettable that throughout this country and abroad the small petrol distributor is being squeezed out by these giant firms.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Usborne: On a point of order. I wish to speak about a different subject. If that is in order I should like to do so.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wants to raise another subject, I must only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). If an hon. Member catches my eye, and the hon. Member has caught my eye, he is entitled to address the House on the Motion for the Adjournment on any proper subject falling within the rules of order. On the other hand, there is a convention that the House should be put in possession of both sides of any case. Therefore, past Speakers have deprecated, as I now deprecate, the raising of subjects on which there is nobody to reply.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. Could I be allowed to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government a question on something which he said in reply to me?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member can ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question outside the Chamber. We seem to he with the hon. Member f)r Yardley (Mr. Usborne) now, and we are on another topic.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Evidently, the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) cannot take a hint. When I asked my point of order, it was deliberately done to give him an opportunity, when I sat down, to get up, so that you, Mr. Speaker, could call him. It now seems clear that he cannot do that, in which case I have no alternative but to make my speech.
Let me start by making two apologies, the first to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other hon. Members and the House, for 'taking up the time of the House, but we have the privilege and the right, when the House comes quickly to the Motion for the Adjournment, to seize the opportunity and we arc, therefore, as you have explained, entitled to do so.
My second apology is to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, in that I have not given him a great deal of notice that I proposed to raise this subject. Indeed, I telephoned his office some 20 minutes ago and told him that if I was lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye I was going to make a short speech about the administration of Berlin and that if he himself or one of his deputies were able to attend I should be extremely grateful, but that if not I would not regard it as in any way discourteous if at so late an hour he or one of his deputies was not able to attend this debate.
I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman notice, and you, Mr. Speaker, told me that on the Motion for the Adjournment we are entitled to speak about administration. It is, indeed, about the administration of Berlin that I want to address a few remarks this evening. I was, unfortunately, unable to catch your eye during the foreign affairs debate last Wednesday, and quite frankly, and let me be quite honest about this. I should like now to make the speech which I would have made last Wednesday had I been fortunate enough to catch your eye.
When the Russians notified their intention to give up their authority in Berlin and to hand it over in six months' time to the East Berliners, this caused quite a flap among the Western Powers, and it


appeared to me that there are, in fact, two distinct reactions which Parliament is now expressing. The reaction expressed by the Foreign Office from the Government Front Bench is, presumably, the reaction which the Western Powers, as Allies together, have agreed upon; namely, they take the view that the Russians have no right unilaterally to make decisions and pull out of their obligations. We are therefore extremely cross with them for doing this, and will not tolerate it. That, briefly, is the attitude of the Western Powers. For the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) regarded some change in Berlin as absolutely inevitable and said that sooner or later it would have to happen. He proposed that we should consider the problem in a far wider context than merely that of Berlin.
I should like to comment on both these propositions; firstly, on the official view of the Government that it is wrong of the Russians to make the proposition which they have made, and that we merely get annoyed with them and propose to maintain at all costs the status quo. I can understand this point of view of the Western Powers, but it does not make a great deal of sense to get cross about this situation, because by getting cross about it we cannot do any good. As far as I can see, if the Russians are bent upon pulling out their authority and their forces from East Berlin and handing over their authority to the East Berlin Government, nothing in the world that we do in the West can prevent them doing that if they have a mind to do so.
Moreover, it seems to me a little churlish and somewhat illogical of us officially to take the attitude that we have, apparently, taken on this. I suppose that we are all agreed in the Western world that it would be an extremely good thing if one day the Russians were to pull the Red Army out of their European satellites and leave those countries to run themselves in their own way. We are surely all agreed on that. It seems to me, then, the more churlish that when they propose, in a sense, to start this process we should react by merely getting hot under the collar. My final comment is that if a change in Berlin is to come about we should consider what to do about it when it does take place.
To come now to the Opposition's proposition, hon. Members will remember that, broadly speaking, it is this. We are suggesting that if it were possible to develop the plan put forward originally by the Polish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Rapacki, and perhaps to enlarge that proposal so that not only East Berlin but also Poland and Czechoslovakia might be made a disarmed and de-nuclearised zone, it should be enlarged also to embrace Western Germany. In that context of a disarmed and de-nuclearised zone, it might be feasible to get the two halves of Germany united, most probably, not as a single sovereign State, but as a federation of the two halves in some way like that.
On the whole, this idea which was put to the House last Wednesday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale seems to have a great deal to commend it. At lease, it is a fresh idea, and it faces the inevitable fact that some changes are going to happen, that ultimately the two halves of Germany need to be united, and if the proposition which has come to be called the Rapacki Plan could be adopted, I think—and I agree with my right hon. Friend—this would form the basis of a satisfactory solution.
I want to enter one caveat which seems to me to be most important. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Western and Eastern Germans, but notably the Western Germans, would be prepared for long to tolerate a situation in which they would be a kind of second-class Power or second-class nation, because according to the Rapacki proposition, not only Poland and Czechoslovakia, but also the two halves of Germany, having been united, would be effectively disarmed, and certainly would not be allowed in any circumstances to have nuclear weapons. In the original plan, they would also be an area of disengagement, an area from which the military bases of the two nuclear Powers would have been withdrawn.
I would point out here that the last version of the Rapacki Plan, published a few weeks ago, as I understand it, no longer insists that any zone that is disarmed and de-nuclearised need necessarily immediately be vacated by the forces of the two mass power complexes, Russia and America. What the Poles seem to be insisting upon is that Germany as a


nation shall be effectively and permanently disarmed, and one can see, from the point of view of the Poles, how important that single fact is—that Germany shall be effectively disarmed and that never again shall she be allowed to be a united sovereign State having a Wehrmacht and a Luftwaffe of her own. From the Polish point of view, and, indeed, from the Russian point of view, one can see how important that point must be.
I have a feeling that they will not settle on any other terms for a solution in Europe except one which can contrive a system which enables two things to be done; first, Germany to be reunited, and, having been reunited, ceasing for ever to be a military danger either to the East or the West. This is a self-evident proposition, and I think it is wholly desirable, but I question whether we could persuade the Germans to agree to this solution if at the same time as the Germans were disarmed and united their neighbours. France and Great Britain, continued to maintain the posture of a great nuclear Power. It seems to me to be complete nonsense to assume that for any length of time we can anticipate the Germans in that part of Europe ever adopting a solution which would make them completely different in status from their neighbours, the French and the British.
It seems to me so important to come to terms with the Polish proposition, which is also the Russian proposition, and one which people all over the world must accept and require, that I believe we should seriously consider enlarging the scope and nature of the Rapacki Plan and look upon it as a proposition which today is as valid to France as it must also be to Britain. I hold the view that if there is to be a solution of the problem of disarmament and denuclearising a zone, it must be and will be a solution that is equally valid and acceptable to the Germans as it is equally valid, and must be accepted by our country, the French and any other of the European nations of similar historic status.
It does not seem to me to make nonsense to think in these terms, because hold the view that if this area of disarmament, of disengagement in a sense, were to be vastly enlarged so that it

could embrace both France and the United Kingdom and all the other European and non-European countries that might wish to come into such a system, one important result would immediately accrue to this solution.
I believe we could then set up a kind of federation of disarmed nations which itself would make regulations for enforcement of the disarmament and see to the facts of enforcement. For I am persuaded that if we take any number of nations, be they the four Mr. Rapacki had in mind or the twenty or thirty I have in mind, the same conclusion has to be admitted, namely, that they will not stay disarmed unless the people in the nations which undertake to be disarmed decide their own formula for disarmament and have their own supra-national control arrangement or a supra-national federation Government that enforces the disarmament on the nations so federated. Because it seems to me as silly to assume that Germany would go into the small zone envisaged by Mr. Rapacki as it is to assume that, even if she did this, the Germans would submit to an enforced disarmament imposed upon them by the great Powers outside.
I do not believe that this is ever likely to happen for any length of time. Obviously, it is a solution that might be acceptable for a short spell, and I can conceive that many Germans who have politically asserted vehemently over and over again their stand for unification might say to themselves that they would accept a disarmed and inferior status in order to achieve unification, with the full knowledge that having achieved the unification they would then assert their sovereignty again and in due course demand their rights, which would be evident to them, and I do not think could be denied by the rest of the world, to be as armed or disarmed as their neighbours, and they would point at France and Britain as the nations which were giving them the example.
It seems to me that if we want these nations, notably Germany, to be united and disarmed, then the solution we want them to accept must also be one that we, the United Kingdom, is ready to accept. It seems to me feasible—although this is a long shot and is an idea which I desperately want to be considered—and


just conceivable that if Britain were to advance this notion, and were to propose a formula under which this country would be prepared to disarm—a formula which would also be satisfying to the Germans, the Czechoslovaks, the Poles, the French, the Russians and the Americans—if we were prepared to put up a proposition in some detail, one of the terms we might well make besides the suggestion that the nations involved, including ourselves and Germany, should be effectively disarmed as nations, would be this zone of disarmament, this federation of disarmed nations being created, of which Britain was a part.
So I feel that Britain might well say, in the event of the creation of such a middle world zone of disarmament, that we would like to insist that the American forces on the continent of Europe should be allowed what bases they deem necessary as a quid pro quo to allowing the Russians also to have nuclear or military bases in the Eastern parts of it if the Russians desire so to do. In due course, it would then be the job of the two great nuclear giants, Russia and America, to take care of the danger of each other's expansion, to take care of the possibility that one or other might make a mad dash for world Armageddon, and the only way they could do this would be by the use of this massive deterrent, by saying frankly, "If either of us makes a dash to defeat the rest of the world by military force, then the other has the power to destroy the world before that can be accomplished."
Meanwhile, in the middle, there would be a group of a great many nations in this federation of disarmed nations which collectively, as nations, would be effectively almost totally disarmed, but as a group, as a federation, they would be secure, because the federation would take over the armies of the nations and turn it into the federal forces of the federation.
The forces of the federation of nations I have envisaged would be considerable but conventional. They would not under any circumstances have or need to have or use nuclear weapons, so that in no circumstances could they ever be a potential military threat to either of the two Power complexes. Nevertheless, they would be collectively, under the control of the federal government, a very considerable conventional armed force, which

would have been taken over on vesting day from the nations which formed the constituent part of this federation I envisage.
This army, this force, would seem to me to be extremely useful in two ways. First, it would provide the first trip wire if either of the two great Power complexes—and, of course, we are worried in considering Russia in this event—should attempt to aggress and invade the territory of the federation. In that case, the first resistance would be put up by the conventional forces of the federal army. It this were inadequate as a trip wire, obviously an appeal would have to be made quickly to the Security Council of the United Nations and aid would immediately have to be called for from that body. This could only be given by the other of the two Power complexes, which would then have to come in and threaten to use its massive deterrent.
The second and far more important use of the conventional army of the federation, as I see it, is this: I am convinced that it is unlikely today that there will be a head-on collision between the two great Powers, directly and deliberately. I am persuaded, however, that there will be considerable likelihood of peripheral brush fires or military engagements and dangers outside the orbit of the two great Powers, such as might be envisaged in the Middle East. When that occurs, and if it is ever necessary to use force, as the Conservative Government in 1956 said it was then necessary for Britain and France to use force; if ever that should be necessary again, it seems to me essential that first the proposition that force be required should be put to the United Nations.
If the United Nations collectively, by a majority or through the Security Council, decided that force was necessary, there would be available on call by the United Nations the conventional forces of the federation of nations, which would immediately, if so required, be made available to the United Nations to support, I hope, the work which should be continuously done in advance by the small, symbolic United Nations police force that so many people have been advocating for so long.
I conclude by repeating my apologies. I am sorry that I have had to keep you, Mr. Speaker, and others, but this was too


good an opportunity for me to miss. As everybody can guess, this is an idea which it is extremely difficult to put across in a conventional debate when ordinary ideas are being canvassed. It is an extraordinary notion, and it may seem fantastic to some people, but I hope that, on consideration, it may not appear quite so fantastic as I am sure it does at first blush.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Usborne) notified the Foreign Office about an hour ago that he intended to raise this subject. I think he is to he congratulated upon raising it. Although we apologise to those who wish to get away from the House early, we do not think that hon. Members should lightly surrender any of the available debating time if it is possible conveniently to arrange with the Department concerned for a reply to be given. I still hope that a representative of the Foreign Office may find it possible to come here as the debate goes on in order to make some reply on the extremely important subject of our reactions to the crisis in Berlin and the policy of disengagement about which my hon. Friend has been speaking.
Many hon. Members were shocked and dismayed the other night by the attitude shown by the Minister of Defence to the general subject that goes by the name of disengagement in Central Europe and the kind of indication that he gave of the Government's approach to the problems now raised by the Soviet policy in Berlin and the discussions now going on in a number of capitals.
There are three simple things on the subject that I should like to say in support of some of the propositions which have been put forward by my hon. Friend. First, it seems to me that it is high time for some peace initiative or proposals to be put forward by Britain. It is high time that the British Government, instead of leaving it to either a Soviet diplomatic offensive or an American State Department reaction, decided that this country and its people had some contribution to make on questions ranging from the nuclear tests which are being discussed in Geneva to the problems of reunifying Germany, and that these were formulated in the form of proposals to be discussed

by the Powers which belong to N.A.T.O. and those which belong to the Warsaw Pact.
I believe that this country could, because of its political and geographical situation, make a very substantial contribution towards the relaxation of tension in the world and towards breaking the vicious circle of the armaments race, but it can do so only under a Government which are sufficiently independent-minded to believe that the British people have a special contribution to make towards preventing war from engulfing the world.
Secondly, it is today generally recognised—I believe it has been formally accepted by the Government—that in the matter of attempting to relax European tension—that is what we are discussing in connection with the Berlin crisis—we ought to adopt a stage by stage, or empirical, approach. That, as I understand it, is the basis of what is now going n in Geneva at at least two conferences —the attempt to separate certain subjects and to reach agreement upon them, not because that will make a substantial advance towards the solution of outstanding problems between the States of the world but because it will at any rate create a better climate in the world. Stoppage of nuclear tests would, of course, do that and would create a better political and diplomatic climate for passing on to even more important subjects.
By their action, the Russians have brought this matter to a head in respect of Germany. There have been many negotiations to try to reach a comprehensive solution to the problem of the reunification of Germany. Time and time again over the years comprehensive proposals have been set out on the one side by the Soviet Union and on the other by the Western Powers. Nobody believes in the possibility of getting any of those proposals adopted today. They know that, because of the length of time during which the cold war has been going on, and the effects of propaganda and counter-propaganda, the military buildup on this side of N.A.T.O. and on the other of the Warsaw Pact, the only hope of laying the basis for a permanent solution to the problem is to move stage by stage towards the relaxation of tension, to a withdrawal or reduction of military forces and the piecemeal solution of particular political problems in the


hope that that will create some basis of international trust and confidence in which the principles of the United Nations Charter can be applied. It is in that spirit, I believe, that we should react to what the Russians have done in Berlin and to the plan which has been put forward by the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr. Rapacki, and that we should formulate our attitude.
I understood that this stage by stage approach had been generally accepted now on all sides. Otherwise I fail to understand what our diplomatic representatives are doing at the conferences in Geneva. If they are going to make the reaching of each agreement conditional on some other stage, those negotiations, too, will be stillborn and we shall not arrive at the improvements for which we hope, including the stoppage of nuclear tests and measures to counter any surprise aggression that might occur
What can be done—this is the question that we have to ask ourselves—in the way of a stage by stage approach to the problem of a divided Germany and a divided Berlin, and what counter-propositions should we make to the action which is proposed by the Soviet Government? The first thesis which is put forward is that we should agree to nothing which upsets the existing military balance of power in Europe. It was on that basis that the Foreign Secretary threw cold water on the previous plan put forward by Mr. Rapacki and that the Minister of Defence the other night rejected the Healey-Gaitskell plan and implied that he more or less rejected the new Rapacki Plan on the ground that in some way it altered the military balance of power between West and East in Europe and in Germany, and that nothing could be accepted by the Western Powers which disadvantaged them militarily, so that it was unlikely that the Western Powers would be favourable towards this plan of disengagement.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my hon. Friend agree with me that the Minister of Defence seemed to go very much further than that, in that, in rejecting the whole idea of disengagement and a disengagement area in Europe, he was only partly relying on the suggestion that it would be to the disadvantage of the West's military forces,

and that his principal ground was that the idea of disengagement was itself bad and undesirable? Did he not seem to believe, as the Foreign Secretary had done earlier on the same day, that the further apart the military forces were, the more likely they were to get into conflict with one another.

Mr. Swingler: Yes, I can substantially accept the interpretation of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The speech of the Minister of Defence was an attack on the whole idea of disengagement, in particular the idea of neutral zones. The Minister of Defence was clearly still obsessed with the idea that there must not be vacuums, and that any vacuums which occurred must be filled with military forces, apparently foreign military forces. He also spent much time attacking neutralisation and suggesting that the creation of neutral zones in Europe must somehow jeopardise the military security of the West and be to the advantage of the Communist Powers and to the disadvantage of the Western Powers.
It is clear from the speech of the Minister of Defence that, in spite of the qualifications made by the Foreign Secretary, before giving it any detailed examination, Her Majesty's Government had turned down the Rapacki Plan in the same off-the-cuff way in which the spokesman of the State Department has always reacted to any such proposals.
We have to examine the concept of balance of power and consider whether it is the proper way in which to approach the matter. I do not believe that there is any such thing as the European balance of power. If there is any balance of power at all, it is a global balance of power. One has only to mention the so-called nuclear deterrent to recognise that it is not limited to Germany, Formosa, or anywhere else. It is recognised that there is a certain balance between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. There is a certain mathematics of nuclear power between them, and that is the global balance of power.
To give any meaning to the phrase "balance of power," one has to get away from the obsession with the arithmetic of nuclear bombs and to consider the political, economic, commercial and moral balance of power in the United Nations. One has to consider where the


Arabs and the Israelis, the Indians and the Pakistanis come into this balance of power. All those countries arc militarily, politically and economically so interdependent that we cannot consider the balance of power in military or strategic terms without immediately introducing factors connected with economic strength, viability, and political systems. As General Keightley said in his dispatches, world public opinion is one of the most powerful military factors in the world today. There is no such thing as a European balance of power hinging on the size or character of forces lined up along the River Elbe.
The proposal of Mr. Rapacki, the Polish Foreign Minister, seems, on the face of it, perfectly sensible, since it is a proposal to reduce and change the character of the armaments, and to diminish the size of the military forces on either side in Europe. On the face of it, it would seem that any sane person must be in favour of any proposal which offers some degree of disarmament for each side. Mr. Rapacki is not proposing that the Americans should immediately completely give up the hydrogen bomb, nor that the Russians should destroy all their stockpiles of hydrogen bombs. He is proposing no alteration at the stratospheric level of the balance of power, which so much obsesses the Defence Departments of the world. He is making a very modest proposal.
Why is it that the reaction to the proposal is so unfavourable when the proposal is to organise a limited nuclear-free zone in the heart of Europe, a zone which will be free of atomic weapons and where there will be a diminution of conventional forces? That is a beginning and an earnest towards some greater step in disarmament, and it will help to create a relaxation of tension in a vital area of the world.
One has to remind oneself that it was a very similar kind of proposal which was included by Sir Anthony Eden in the programme which he put forward at the summit talks in the summer of 1955. Admittedly that was tied up with a number of other and different proposals, but he also suggested deliberately creating a vacuum and withdrawing forces to create a better atmosphere and to relax tension.
The reason why such violent criticism and opposition have been offered is that

the Defence Departments of the West are still obsessed with including German forces in their military alliances. It is because of the difficulty of doing that, if it is agreed not to have atomic weapons thrown into the arms of certain forces in the West and if it is agreed to reduce the size of certain forces in the West, that there is a resistance to this proposal, especially from those who believe that it may be possible to get a reunified Germany included in a Western military alliance.
It is common or garden realism that a unified Germany will not be allied to the Western Powers without a world war. We may as well recognise that under no kind of negotiations are we going to persuade the Russians to agree to the reunification of Germany in circumstances in which such a reunified Germany, with its military forces, is included in a military alliance.
Therefore, if we really wish to persuade the Russians to agree, at a later date, to free elections in East as well as West Germany—and that will be one of the great difficulties—we must put forward realistic proposals, which are negotiable. Would it not therefore be better, militarily, to dispense with the quite unnecessary proposition that German forces must be used in a Western military alliance, because of some abstruse idea of a military balance of power in Europe which does not exist? Would it not be better to approach the whole problem of the stage-by-stage reunification of Germany by first getting a limited degree of disarmament, rather than to put forward a comprehensive plan including points upon which we know we cannot yet get agreement with the Russians?
Let us consider what would be the reactions of some of the members of the Warsaw Pact—the Poles, the Czechs and others who suffered under the occupation of Nazi forces during the war—if we said, "Here is a possibility, not necessarily by swallowing wholesale the Rapacki Plan, for some negotiated reduction of both nuclear and conventional forces." Any step that withdrew nuclear forces from the centre of Europe, combined with a proportionate reduction in the size of armed forces, would improve the climate of Europe and make more fruitful any future negotiations on disarmament.
Such an agreement would in no way affect the global balance of power. It would, however, offer a colossal political advantage in that, following upon an agreement to stop nuclear tests and the consequent pollution of the atmosphere, we might immediately create one area of disarming forces in a most important part of the world which could otherwise be converted into another Korea. That, in turn, might set an example to other areas of the world, such as the Middle East, which could well do with a plan for disengagement and a gradual diminishing of forces, in order to create a better spirit on either side of certain frontiers, as a basis for bringing about fruitful political negotiations.
I hope that the pressure of public opinion in this country and of hon. Members on this side of the House, who see that this is the only realistic and constructive approach to peace-making today, will be sufficient to make this or some other Government put forward a British peace initiative based upon British interest in stopping the vicious circle of the armaments race and the interests of the common peoples everywhere in reducing, instead of increasing, the size of armed forces.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to identify myself with the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) for a constructive initiative in our foreign policy, though I do not wish to add a great deal to what I said in the foreign affairs debate last Thursday.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Usborne) communicated with the Foreign Office and stated that, arising out of the hazards that sometimes occur in the business of the House, he intended to raise questions of foreign policy. We do not expect a senior or junior Minister suddenly to cancel an engagement to deal with exigencies of this kind. I do not know how far the Foreign Office is on unofficial strike, or whether the absence of any representative has something to do with the fog, but I should have thought that an attempt would have been made by someone to listen to what is said in this Adjournment debate. I would be content

if the Foreign Office sent here one of the gentlemen who act as its spokesmen.
On some occasions the Foreign Secretary delegates his duty to officials of the Foreign Office, who are called its spokesmen. Last week a spokesman of the Foreign Office made a statement—for which the Foreign Secretary takes responsibility—which has caused considerable interest not only in this country but in Europe, America and the rest of the world. It was a unique statement in that the spokesman went out of his way to attack a very well-known British journalist.
I have no brief for Mr. Randolph Churchill—or for the right hon. Member of the same name—but I suggest that this unprecedented attack on him is something which the Foreign Office should explain more rationally than it has done to date. I have no doubt that the words spoken in this debate will be conveyed to the Foreign Office by way of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that an attempt will be made to justify the attitude taken up by the Foreign Office in making this attack, in which it has said that what Mr. Randolph Churchill said in his articles was inaccurate, and then dropping the whole matter and refusing to specify those inaccuracies.
Journalists should be as much under fire as politicians, and I see no reason why, if the Foreign Office had any specific reason for attacking Mr. Randolph Churchill, it should not have specified exactly what the inaccuracies were. Were they concerned with his arguments about collusion? Were they concerned with his talk of the diplomatic comings and goings in the Foreign Office? What were they?
It is, as I said yesterday, a mean and cowardly attack on a well-known journalist which, as a journalist myself, I resent. Once the attack had been made on Mr. Randolph Churchill, surely he should have been told what was the charge against him and been given an opportunity to reply. I think that the Foreign Office has established a very dangerous precedent. Sooner or later these matters are bound to come to light.
I have urged the Prime Minister to appoint an official historian to cover the Suez affair. If Mr. Randolph Churchill's remarks were inaccurate in some respects, surely the historians of the future—as historians of the two world wars have


done—would be able to give the facts, quotations and appendices to show that in some respects these remarks were inaccurate. Replying yesterday to a Question which I put to him, the Prime Minister said:
In the second place, I would have thought that with the hon. Gentleman's temperament and general political position he would always have preferred a freelance to an official approach."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 9th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 205.]
There is certainly a good deal to be said for freelances in politics, journalism and literature, and I have no objection to being called a freelance. But the difficulty which confronts a freelance is that while he may express certain criticisms, he has no access to the official documents. Mr. Randolph Churchill is at a disadvantage compared, for example, with Field Marshal Montgomery or Sir Anthony Eden, who, according to precedent, have —I understand—an opportunity to look at the records at the Foreign Office and the War Office. That is why a freelance is at a disadvantage until years after the event, when the Suez affair, for instance, will have been relegated into distant history.
The Prime Minister does not want an official historian. He does not want a Select Committee. He is prepared to abide by the verdict of the electorate, which is to be the jury. But how are the jury to come to a verdict when they do not know the evidence? It seems to me that the Prime Minister is deliberately conspiring to put the Suez skeleton back into the cupboard until after the General Election. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Mr. Randolph Churchill, for some reason or other, has dragged it out.
This is not a private vendetta between a prominent journalist and the Government. It is a matter of national and international concern upon which the reputations of statesmen and politicians depend. I maintain that if the people are to be called upon to give the verdict, at least they should know the facts and the evidence. To me, the argument advanced by the Prime Minister showed that he was rattled and is very anxious indeed that the question of Suez should not be discussed.
But there are many reasons why Suez should be discussed. For example, a serious unemployment situation is developing. One of the reasons for that—

so we are told—is that we have lost our markets in the Middle East as the result of the Suez incident. We are entitled to know the facts about Suez, the military, political and economic facts, so that the nation in its grand assize will be able to judge.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will agree that the Prime Minister said he was prepared to put his record in connection with the Suez adventure and the record of my right hon. Friend to the test in the near future. The record of my right hon. Friend is well known to the public, but we do not know the record of the Prime Minister in the Suez affair. Of course, we suspect what it was—we believe, as my hon. Friend says, that it was, "First in, first out". But my hon. Friend will agree that until we know the record of the Prime Minister it cannot be put to the test.

Mr. Hughes: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. Were I in the Prime Minister's place—that takes a lot of imagination to conceive—I should welcome a Select Committee. There is a body of opinion in the country which believes that the Prime Minister was one who took a very strong stand in the Cabinet in advocating the policy of the war. There are definite precedents in our political history for Select Committees probing very important political and national events of this kind in the national interest. A Select Committee inquired into the Jameson Raid. A Select Committee inquired into the Dardanelles episode.
I submit that if the Prime Minister wished to be as outspoken and as challenging as he sometimes appears in debate, he would appoint a Select Committee in this instance. He would say, "I present myself to be examined by hon. Members from either side of the House." Then, I submit, the Prime Minister would be adopting the honourable attitude necessary to vindicate himself. If he is so confident of the verdict of the people, he should hasten to do that before the General Election. I am very much indebted to my hon. Friend for stressing that point.
I made my modest demand for an official historian because an unofficial historian cannot get the facts. Of course, unofficial historians—freelances—serve their purpose. Mr. Randolph Churchill


has served his purpose. It is the unconventional people in journalism and literature who sometimes drag out the truth; and I could give illustrations of that.
Today, I received from the Prime Minister's office a list of subjects with which official historians have been appointed to deal, and upon which official histories are to be written. They number over 50. They include the British war economy, problems of social policy, a statistical digest of the war. British war production—there are over 50 subjects, and 50 specialists in history are now employed in writing the history of the Second World War. I should be quite content if some of these gentlemen of great academic distinction could be employed to deal with this specific problem.
According to the information which I have received, there are no less than six volumes to be written by experts about the Middle East; the story of the war in the Mediterranean and the Middle East will extend to six volumes. Surely one volume could be spared to discuss the sequel to it. So far as we know, the Suez war marked the turning point in British policy in that area. I would have been content—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Did not the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs make it clear at the time of the intervention in Suez that we were not at war?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is showing a legal acumen which I do not possess. With all due respect to him, I do not wish to split hairs about legal points of that kind. If he does not wish me to use the word "war" I shall be content to say "hostilities".
Here are the names of some of the historians to whom I have referred. They are Major-General Playfair, Captain F. C. Flynn, Brigadier Molony, Group Captain Gleave and Major-General Kirby. They are all people who have great knowledge of military events and of the geography of the Middle East. I would be content for them to write an interim volume covering the Suez affair so that we would at least have, not opinions, but facts. The Prime Minister must be aware that he is regarded as one of the villains of the piece, one of the guilty men.

Mr. Short: Does the letter which my hon. Friend has received from the Prime Minister say whether these volumes are available to us in the Vote Office?

Mr. Hughes: I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend every piece of information I have in my possession. Why did the Foreign Office think it necessary to appoint a spokesman? Other Departments have been criticised in Mr. Randolph Churchill's articles, such as the War Office. Curiously enough, the War Office did not hold an official Press conference or appoint an official spokesman, although some of the things that Mr. Randolph Churchill said about the War Office are as serious as those he said against the Foreign Office.
Mr. Randolph Churchill accused the War Office of being completely unprepared for the expedition into Suez. If that is true, it is a grave indictment of the War Office. Year after year we have voted thousands of millions of pounds to the Ministry of Defence, and when it comes to a small war in Suez we have the statement made that the military chiefs were completely unprepared for it.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the importance of the statements which are being made by my hon. Friend, ought we not to have on the Government Front Bench a representative from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, or of some other responsible Government Department?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It is customary for an hon. Member who wishes to raise a matter on the Adjournment to give the responsible Minister notice that he intends to do so. Presumably a Minister has not been given notice in this case.

Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend said that he had informed the Foreign Office at 6.15 that he intended to raise this subject. The debate has been going on now for nearly two hours, so it is evident that the Foreign Office representative intends to do nothing about it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. I cannot deal with the presence or absence of Ministers.

Mr. Rankin: The Foreign Office spokesman must have realised that something would be said in the House. Why cannot we have a representative?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Short: Is this not an exhibition of discourtesy to the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only courtesy involved is that of giving notice to the Department that a debate is to take place.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend gave notice to the Foreign Office more than an hour ago that the debate was to take place. Surely that is discourtesy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is, it is not one with which I can deal.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Is the dissemination of information a matter for the War Office? Surely the people who deal with this matter do not come from the Foreign Office or the War Office.

Mr. Hughes: I would have been quite prepared for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to be present. He is in charge of the information services, but he should not be regarded as a real substitute for a representative from the Foreign Office, although he could not have made a worse job of it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I can see no reason in the world why a representative of either the War Office or the information services should be present. As I understand the charges made by Mr. Randolph Churchill against the War Office, they are not denied and nobody has said that they are inaccurate. The only charge of inaccuracy has come from the Foreign Office. One must take it that the charges are admitted by the War Office.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members must allow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to complete his speech.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) anticipated one of my arguments. What is mysterious is that, when the sweeping charge was made against the War Office and it was shown that although money had been voted to the

Department it had resulted only in its being unprepared, Mr. Churchill said that the British public had not guessed how unprepared we were.
Surely the silence of the War Office means that there has been a substantial amount of truth in what Mr. Randolph Churchill has said. I can understand the War Office not wishing Mr. Randolph Churchill to search the records because he would probably find some which would show the unpreparedness of the War Office, facts, figures and statements which would make even a Churchill blush; facts, figures, quotations and despatches of cables which even the Secretary of State for War would not care to show to his brother-in-law.
There is some irony and humour in all this, if it did not deal with a disastrous military expedition—call it a war or not—which resulted in a tremendous decline of British power and influence in the Middle East and in Britain's being turned out of the Middle East. That alone proves that there is what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne would call a prima facie case why there should be a Select Committee. We will go on pressing until a Select Committee is appointed.
Other Departments of Her Majesty's Government are affected by this allegation. There is the Treasury. Many statements have been made about threats made by the President and the Foreign Secretary of the United States of America, who were against the Suez expedition. Nobody would be better able to give the facts, figures and details about that than the present Prime Minister, because he was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The allegation of Mr. Randolph Churchill is that there was a deliberate threat by the American Government to the £if we did not cease, did not call off, the Suez affair. The Government were told that if they did not call off the Suez affair within 36 hours the Americans would not back the £. That would have meant financial collapse.
So Mr. Randolph Churchill's allegation is that it was not a Russian threat of bombarding Britain by rockets, it was not military opposition in Suez, and not public opinion in this country, but American financial pressure; America told the Government frankly, "If you do not stop this mad adventure in Suez we will ruin the £."
Surely the Prime Minister knows all the facts. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. The Prime Minister is hiding behind the façade of a newly prefabricated reputation to convince the country that he is a righteous man who has nothing to hide. If he has nothing to hide, let him think again about this Select Committee.
Mr. Randolph Churchill goes so far as to say that when President Eisenhower heard of the British action in Suez, it made him so mad that he used language that has not been used in the White House since the time of General Grant. When I talk about General Grant, I do not mean the general grant which we have been debating this week. From the financial point of view alone, this matter should be investigated and the facts brought out. I hope that the matter will be pressed. Public opinion has been aroused by the articles in the Daily Express and among people who are not Socialists at all.
Surely the Government have something to hide. If they have nothing to hide, then they should appoint a Select Committee. Let the Government state in detail what their charges are against Mr. Randolph Churchill. No one should be branded as a liar unless he knows the details of the accusations against him. Although we bring this matter up on a rather extraordinary and unorthodox occasion, we believe that we are doing our duty to the people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Bence.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. This debate has now been going on to the knowledge of the Government Whips for about two hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Usborne), Who started the debate about two hours ago, previously notified the Foreign Office that he desired to raise certain questions which concerned the Foreign Office. As my hon. Friend did the proper and conventional thing in notifying the Government Department, have not the Government Whips a responsibility to this House for ensuring that Ministers attend when important matters which affect their Department are being discussed?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Short: Further to that point of order. The position has now deteriorated. At least a few minutes ago a Lord of the Treasury was present, but he is not present at the moment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. N. Nicolson: On a point of order. I have been present for an hour. I have heard three or four consecutive speeches from the Labour benches. I have twice tried to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not normal practice in this House that as far as possible Members from both sides of the House are called alternately?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member; I overlooked him.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. While recognising the interest of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch in the subject, surely it is improper of him to try to interfere in any way—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

EMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: It struck me a little while ago that in order to have a better distribution of Members in the House it would be better if I went over to the benches opposite to give a little more balance. It seems extraordinary that when an important issue like this is raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Usborne), ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and by the brilliant exposition of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in support of an inquiry into an event which may well have had and, I believe, will have in future very serious consequences for the United Kingdom, no Minister is present. There is hardly a constituency which has not been affected by the loss of trade with the Middle East, and, in particular, Egypt.
It was interesting to note in the Press this week and over the week-end that certain interests in this country are


clamouring for a renewal of trade with Egypt. At the present moment, Germany, Italy and France are capturing the trade which we had with Egypt before Suez. It is tragic that we should suffer a loss of reputation in trying to save the canal from being destroyed or from being inefficiently worked when every report from Egypt shows that the canal is being worked as efficiently today as ever before.
As a result of our action we have lost a good deal of respect in the Middle East and a tremendous slice of trade. Yet the Foreign Office makes, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire said yesterday, a cowardly and vicious attack upon Mr. Randolph Churchill, and I think that everyone will agree that the Daily Express on this occasion, through Mr. Randolph Churchill, has made a great contribution to our democratic way of examining things done by the Government in the name of the people.
I was surprised to learn from my hon. Friend—and I accept it—that the main pressure was from the financial institutions of America to destroy the £ if we did not stop this little game in Suez. I was surprised that our American allies should threaten to ruin the country—they have the power to do that—because the British and French in collusion made this unwise attack upon the Suez Canal.
I want now to deal with the Government's policies generally as they affect Scotland. We have in my constituency about fifty refugees from Egypt. I believe that they received a few pounds compensation for their losses as a result of Suez, but some of them are still unemployed and are not likely to get employment. If one is over 40 years of age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get employment in Scotland. For the first time, I am informed, the placing of skilled men into employment is becoming difficult and to get employment in some skilled trades is almost impossible. The Government, we presume, in order to stimulate employment and to try to create a climate in the country that will be favourable to them when they go to the country, which they will do some time next year, have created the idea that they are encouraging an intensification of production and a stimulation of trade. Good employment prospects may obtain in the South, but unfortunately in Scotland, notwithstanding

all the Government's efforts, unemployment is rising. The removal of hirepurchase restriction and the encouragement of increased consumption is all right in an area where the unemployment rate is only 2·2 per cent. People feel a certain amount of confidence. They have jobs and perhaps are able to buy washing machines which they see in the shop windows.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. In view of the importance of the subject which is now under discussion, at least from the Scottish point of view, I wonder whether it would be possible for one of the five or six Scottish Ministers to be present?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I understand that no notice has been given to the Scottish Office about this debate, and it is not my responsibility.

Mr. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order. Would you not agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that even if notice had been given, if the Scottish Ministers had shown no more courtesy than the Foreign Office, my hon. Friend's point of order would have been purposeless?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know what notice was given to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. Just after 6 p.m. my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley told the House that he had given notice to the Foreign Office that he would initiate this debate, since which time—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot go into that.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. Is there not some responsibility to hon. Members who attend the House? Does not the House normally meet until 10 p.m. under Standing Orders? Are we to understand that no Ministers are available?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Bence: In view of the matters I hope to raise—and I hope that my Scottish colleagues will also raise them—it is unfortunate that no Scottish Ministers are here. I appreciate, however, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are not in a


position to bring them here. If you cannot get them here and we cannot get them here, I do not know how, in the name of fortune, they can be brought here. I only hope that it will be appreciated by the public that if Ministers of the Crown cannot be here before the election, when important matters such as this are being discussed, they should see that after the election they are not here either.
I was talking about the employment position and the stimulation of employment by Government measures. While these measures are being taken, unemployment in Scotland has doubled. It has risen to 95,000 and is still rising. The Government's measures seem to have no effect at all and there seems no hope unless the Government take some drastic action immediately and reverse some past decisions. Apart from this, there seems no immediate possibility of any improvement in the employment situation in Scotland.
The tragedy is that we had a factory, the Dalmuir Royal Ordnance Factory, which we were told was not required by the Ministry of Supply because it did not want the tanks and the military equipment; it already had plenty. The factory was transferred to another company which employed only a few hundred men instead of 2,000. It is extraordinary to read from General Keightley's Report that when we went into Suez the troops had only eighteen L.S.T.s and eleven L.C.T.s and only enough aircraft to carry two battalions. The general theme of his Report on Suez is that the War Office and the Admiralty were short of every sort of equipment under the sun. That was after five years of spending at the rate of £1,400 million a year. We went into action in the Eastern Mediterranean against such a small country as Egypt, with the French, and those in command said that they never had the equipment.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: They had never had it so bad.

Mr. Bence: I agree; the British troops had never had it so bad. At the end of his Report the General says that the soldiers, sailors and airmen at least deserve some credit. Presumably no one outside the military activity were entitled to any credit. It seems hard to realise that Ordnance factories were being closed

down all over the country while our forces were going into action without the material they needed to do the job.
I am told that the factory at Dalmuir cost £14 million. It could take 3,000 to 5,000 men on the floor. There are now about 500 to 600. The factory has been handed over to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. I have sufficient knowledge of production work and production costs to know very well that there is no company in the country which, on a commercial basis, could run a factory of that capacity and employ it only to turn out the output of 500 to 600 men.

Mr. James Carmichael: What did the company pay for it?

Mr. Bence: We should like to know. We have lost a lot of money on all sorts of ways, for example, through buying boots for the Services. We heard today that the Government have bought more boots and shoes than they need and have lost a lot of money. They said that they did not want this factory in Scotland, and it would be interesting to know how much was lost as a result of that. They disposed of the factory at the same time as military commanders said they could have done with the products of that factory and could not accomplish their task because they lacked the equipment they needed.
We also have the shocking position of the shipbuilding industry. The House was told today that there are five berths idle on the Clyde. At the same time the Foreign Office turns away an order for ships which might well have gone to the Clyde. The order has gone to German and Italian yards, which will make these vessels. By sub-contracting, these German and Italian yards are buying the propelling machinery and naval equipment from British engineering firms—but the Foreign Office has not stopped that. This seems to me a little crazy. It seems to me that one Department does not know what the other Department is doing.
These are the things which are affecting employment on Clydeside. Recently we were given the unemployment figures in shipbuilding for the Glasgow area. I do not believe they include Greenock and Port Glasgow, where there are some


big shipyards, but perhaps some of my hon. Friends, who will follow me in the debate, know whether that is so. In the last two years unemployment in shipbuilding and ship repairing in the Clyde Valley has increased from 650 to 1,300. It has doubled in shipbuilding on the Clyde in the last two years.
The shipbuilding programme on the Clyde will be finished in two years' time and half the Clyde will be idle unless more orders are received. We have previously drawn attention to the American policy of very heavy subsidies for shipbuilding. Their subsidy for two passenger liners is almost 50 per cent. of the cost of the ships. Those are the conditions with which our shipbuilding yards are trying to compete. At the same time, when there is an opportunity to obtain orders the Foreign Office steps in and frustrates the British yards.
The British Government will allow British industries such as shipbuilding to decline because they will take no action to support the British industry against the Germans and the Japanese and, indeed, against the Americans, where Governments are encouraging shipbuilding in their countries. The British Government know very well—it is commonly known—that the American Government are determined to establish the United States and Japan as the great shipbuilding nations, because they are in the Pacific and in another world war it would be better from their point of view to have the shipbuilding in the Pacific. They are writing off Great Britain as a great shipbuilding nation.
This is common knowledge in shipping circles. The Americans are determined to write us off because of the strategic situation. We know what happened in the last war. The Liberty ship was designed in this country but it was built in America in Kaiser's yards.

Mr. Rankin: And we should not forget the flags of convenience.

Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend is right. The Americans were great sponsors of the flags of convenience to build up the Pacific fleets and transports and to draw the shipbuilding centre away from Europe. That would ruin Great Britain. The carrying trade, by both tramps and liners, is one of our biggest dollar earners and

always has been. Our shipping services have always been vital to us. Anything which undermines shipbuilding and British merchant shipping cuts at the roots of Britain's prosperity.
While the Government are so reluctant to do what they can to face these methods used by our competitors in shipbuilding, at the same time they buy subsidised Polish coal. I cannot understand that. They buy subsidised Polish coal for the British Navy at the same time as they intend to close British coal mines. To me this seems a tragic thing to do. We may be able to buy thousands of tons of Polish coal in terms of money cheaper than we can get coal from our own mines, but surely we ought to weigh in the balance the social consequences to the people in our own country.
I am going to an area on Sunday in Scotland where a mine is being closed on which a village depends. I know from talking to some of my colleagues from Scottish coal mining areas that there are cases in which a village depends entirely on one or two pits and these pits are being closed. In Scotland we have empty factories and no firms to go into them. We hear a lot of talk about the war on want. If the Government wished to wage a war on want and against poverty in India and in the Colonies, I have heard it said by a Minister in this House and reported in the Press that we could easily make a contribution of 1 per cent. of our national income. What does 1 per cent. of our national income mean? We tend to think in terms of money, but we should think in terms of national resources. If we used 1 per cent. of our national resources we could send from this country capital goods for the cultivation of the soil and irrigation in India, and to Kenya, the Sudan and other backward areas, and we could bring all the resources that are now idle into full production. That is what it means in physical terms. In this country today 1 per cent. or 1¼ per cent. of our labour and its physical capacity to produce goods is now idle.

Mr. Fernyhough: Surely in the steel industry it is 25 per cent., and in the coal mining industry it must be about 15 per cent.

Mr. Bence: In the steel industry it is very bad indeed.
We have the extraordinary position that the output of the steel industry in Wales, which is still nationalised, is going up and capital investment in the steel industry there is going up at a tremendous rate. The whole of the steel industry in Scotland was denationalised; there is no nationalised steel in Scotland. Every pit is under private enterprise. The steel production in Scotland is falling under private enterprise and steel production in Wales is rising. Since 1952, the output of steel sheet in Scotland has fallen from 84,000 tons per annum to 36,000 tons. The output of sheet steel of Richard Thomas and Baldwin and The Steel Company of Wales has risen since 1952 by 60 per cent.
We have the resources of the steel industry being expanded because it is the Government's wish to expand them. In Scotland, however, where we have private enterprise, output is falling. Whether it is because of its geographical location, whether it is because that part of the country is looked upon by the Government in Westminster as containing of second-class citizens, certainly not the same as London and the Home Counties, or whether it is because of traditional or historic conditions it is looked upon as having something like Dominion status. I do not know, but it is a fact, which no one can deny, that the output of steel in Scotland has considerably fallen. We have the extraordinary position that Richard Thomas and Baldwins is a nationalised concern. It wants to put down a strip mill. The Steel Board agree.

Mr. Rankin: Stripping a strip mill.

Mr. Bence: You cannot split a mill, although one can split peas. It is a catchpenny when one talks about splitting a strip mill. I do not accept that. If anyone talks about splitting an integrated process, or two integrated processes, I do not accept it. To me it is most uneconomic.

Mr. Rankin: I said they are stripping a strip mill.

Mr. Bence: That may be. There was no question as to whether Richard Thomas and Baldwins could find the finance to build a strip mill near Newport. There was never any difficulty about how they were to get the finance; no one ever raised it. When it was suggested that Colvilles as a private enterprise industry in Scotland might do something about

this strip mill no one would finance it. Colvilles made a tremendous extension at Ravenscraig. I visited there two or three years ago and was shown the area for the site. The company said that the land was available and that they were going to make developments in a few years' time. It told the Steel Board and the Government that it could not get the money to do it. It told the Treasury and the Steel Board that if they wanted it to extend or develop there they would have to give special financial terms.
I have spoken to many people as I am sure my hon. Friends have, including the honorary treasurers of local authorities in Scotland, and they have asked us if it is possible for the Government to give them some special loan terms, something different from the market terms, because they found it so difficult to carry on the administration in Scotland and the building up of resources in Scotland by being forced on to the money market. They could not carry on their work by borrowing from the money market. Colvilles said exactly the same thing. that they could not extend their steel works by borrowing on the market because the market would not lend the money. So it appealed to the Government.
The Prime Minister has been asked what are the special financial terms? What special terms in finance is private enterprise to get, and is it to get the same concession as Richard Thomas and Baldwins, the nationalised industry in South Wales? Are Colvilles in Scotland to get the same financial terms as the strip mill in South Wales? If so, the people in Scotland will want to know why private enterprise in Scotland can get special financial terms to carry out a difficult project while local authorities which are faced with immense problems in Scotland cannot get special financial terms but have to go to the open money market.
It is this sort of thing which annoys the people of Scotland, when they see exactly what this Government are doing.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is my Friend sure of his facts? He is accusing private enterprise of wanting, in effect, Government subsidies. Does he not know that private enterprise says that it does not believe in Government subsidies?

Mr. Bence: I do not agree with my hon. Friend when he says that private enterprise does not want Government subsidies. I have worked in private enterprise. I worked in private enterprise from 1917 until I came here.

Mr. Fernyhough: But my hon. Friend was excluding the farmers, was he not?

Mr. Bence: I worked for a very big engineering firm, and between the wars Government orders were to us as a subsidy.

Mr. S. Silverman: Money for nothing?

Mr. Bence: It was money for nothing, I agree.
If one had a private contract and were losing some money on it, one wangled the private enterprise job and switched it to Government account. That was a subsidy.
Private enterprise wants the Government to use their powers and their ways and means to give it a hidden subsidy. When we ask for special financial terms, a special low rate of interest, the Government always tell us that that is a hidden subsidy. If Colvilles are to get special financial terms, is not that a hidden subsidy? Is that not an action by the Government to subsidise private enterprise in Scotland?

Mr. Swingler: These facts are very important, especially to the increasing number of citizens in the country who are suffering from the misfortune of unemployment, as, unfortunately, a large number in my own constituency are, and so I would ask my hon. Friend what are the conclusions which, from this very interesting analysis, he draws about the future planning by a Labour Government for full employment.

Mr. Bence: My own view is that we should immediately nationalise the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will not suggest legislation in a debate on the Adjournment.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. DeputySpeaker. My hon. Friend asked me what I would do to ensure full employment in the steel industry in Scotland. We have been told by private enterprise in Scotland that if it is to expand industry the Government, the State, must come to its aid. So I would say that if you come to the aid of the baby you take the baby over. I imagine that that does not need legislation.
It is now half-past eight. I was hoping that some of the Scottish Ministers would have come along while I was raising these very important points. I am afraid that unemployment in Scotland has gone over the 9 per cent. mark. We have 6,000 school leavers unplaced. Much of this arises from deliberate Government policy over the last few years. Some of it we know on the Clyde arises from our loss of prestige and our stupid action at Suez. I am convinced that this House of Commons and this Government must do something either by legislation or by administrative action. I think something could be done by administrative action to direct work to the factories and shipyards in Scotland, and particularly on the Clyde. There is a factory not far from me which is to close down next week. It is to be empty the engineering works stripped from it.

Mr. Short: On the Clyde?

Mr. Bence: On the Clyde, although I know that that sort of thing is happening on the Tyne, too.
Unless something is done to improve matters I am sure that the people of Scotland will turn bitterly against the present Government. I am afraid that they may feel increasingly bitter against this whole institution down here, since it appears to neglect the interests of Scotland.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) expressed some fears about the reputation of "this institution," by which I imagine he meant the House of Commons. Does he really believe that the performance to which we have been subjected during the last two-and-a-half hours has increased the reputation of the House of Commons in the eyes of those who watch us and read about our proceedings?

Mr. Bence: There has been no Minister here.

Mr. Nicolson: We know very well that it is part of our procedure that if the debate which is allotted for the day ends unnaturally early and the subject put down for debate on the Adjournment is one which is of purely local interest and does not attract a great many other speeches, it is then possible for any other hon. Members to fill the hours between the end of the official Adjournment debate and the rising of the House by making speeches on any subject they wish. [HON. MEMBERS; "Why not?"] It is also the tradition of the House to give as long notice as possible to the Minister concerned that one intends to raise such and such a subject. But this privilege can be abused, and it is being abused tonight.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), who commenced this part of the debate, is not here now. He has been accused of abusing the rules of the House. I should like to repeat to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley said to the House, and I believe that at that time the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) was in his place. My hon. Friend told the House that, seeing that the previous debate on the Adjournment Motion was going to finish, he rapidly gave notice to the Foreign Office that he wished to start a debate on Foreign Office questions. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that is a perfectly legitimate thing, which has been done many times in the history of the House. My hon. Friend did a

perfectly correct thing. He notified the Department and then made a perfectly legitimate speech. I submit to you, with the greatest respect, that it is entirely disorderly that my hon. Friend should be accused of abusing the rules of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) is perfectly entitled to state his views.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I submit another point arising out of what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has said. I understand that this debate has been going on now for about two-and-a-half hours. I have been here most of the time, though not all. If there has been any abuse of the procedure of the House for the past two-and-a-half hours it must have been a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Chair, and the comment by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) is grossly disorderly, because it cannot be understood except as being an attack upon the conduct of the proceedings of the House by the Chair, an attack which would be wholly unjustified and wholly improper.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch made any attack on the Chair at all.

Mr. S. Silverman: Of course he did.

Mr. Swingler: You appear to have upheld, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the assertion by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch that there has been for two-and-a-half hours an abuse of the rules of the House, over which you have been presiding.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I said that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch was entitled to express his views.

Mr. Silverman: Further to the point of order. I respectfully say that although any hon. Member, on either side of the House, is entitled to express his views, there are some things which he is not entitled to say under our rules, otherwise our debates here would be impossible. One of them is that he must not impugn the conduct of debate or proceedings by


the Chair, except on a positive Motion placed on the Order Paper. I make a perfectly serious point. It seems to me that if there had been an abuse of the rules of the House for two-and-a-half hours that could have happened only if the conduct of the proceedings by the Chair had been lax, negligent and improper, and I suggest that the charge of abuse ought to be withdrawn immediately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker has already deprecated speeches made without giving notice to the Minister. There has been a breach of that convention in the House and the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch is entitled to express his views.

Mr. Silverman: As far as I know, no speech has been made without adequate notice given to the Minister concerned, and I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is just possible to allow a certain amount of impatience and irritation at not being able to go home early to go over the border to positive partisanship.

Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, and you were not here, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley rose, Mr. Speaker said that it was the convention of the House that notice should be given, whereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley rose and pointed out that he had been able to give only very short notice to the Department concerned, and did not, therefore, expect that immediately it would be able to send any representative. He had endeavoured to conform with the conventions of the House and give notice, and he was making his speech and introducing this discussion on that basis. For a considerable time after that, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch was sitting there, and at no time did he care to rise and say that the rules of the House were being abused. He waits this long period of time, during which he alleges that there has been an abuse of the rules of the House, in order to make this assertion when my hon. Friend is not present.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no charge by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch that there

has been an abuse of the rules of the House, and I do not think that is what he said.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is exactly what he said.

Mr. Nicolson: May I make clear the point I would have made if I had been allowed to get a word in edgeways in the last three or four minutes. I was not accusing hon. Members of a breach of the rules of the House. I was accusing hon. Members of using one of the traditions of the House in an improper manner, and bringing the House of Commons into disrepute by this particular use of the gap which happens to have occurred between the end of the day's allotted business and the rising of the House.

Mr. Short: On a point of order. The hon. Member is saying precisely the same thing, but in other words. What he said is within the recollection of the whole House, and it is that what has been going on for the past two and a half hours was not an abuse of the conventions of the House but an abuse of the rules of order, which is a very different thing. He now says that it is improper. I suggest to you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the conventions of the House are not binding on anybody. They are purely permissive, and we may obey them if we wish. The rules of order, however, are binding, and they are, therefore, a matter for the Chair. If an hon. Gentleman alleges that there has been a breach of the rules of order, it is surely a reflection on the conduct of the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member suggested that there has been a breach of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Nicolson: Let me say once again that I accuse no hon. Member, let alone the Chair, of a breach of the rules of order. I was merely asking the hon. Member, as one back-bencher to another, whether it is in the interests of the House of Commons that this practice which we have experienced tonight should become a standard practice. Personally, and I am expressing only a personal opinion, I think that it is unfortunate, and that it can do very little good to the hon. Members themselves.
What is the point of making a long speech about Scottish industry, as did


the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who spoke last, and who certainly had not notified, and could not notify, the Minister, that he would speak on this subject? It may be that his speech will earn a few lines in his local newspaper, but it will receive no answer from the Minister concerned, and could not do so. As for the earlier debate, if one can give it that name, upon foreign affairs, which ranged over a very wide field under that heading, it cannot be easy, perhaps it is not even possible, for any of the limited number of Ministers at the Foreign Office to come here at very short notice to answer a debate of which they have had no previous notice at all, and when, by the circumstances of the events tonight, they would have come into the debate halfway through the opening, and presumably the most important, speech.

Mr. Swingler: May I interrupt on that point?

Mr. Nicolson: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have not even begun what I wished to say. I wish to give a personal answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. S. Silverman: Will not that be improper.

Mr. Nicolson: For the reasons I have given there can be no member of the Foreign Office here. I certainly do not speak on behalf of the Government or of the Foreign Office, but it could be asked by those who perhaps will read in the papers tomorrow that the hon. Gentleman attacked the Foreign Office, why there was not a single Member on the other side of the House who could give him the simplest answer. So, although perhaps it might have been wiser to let the hon. Gentleman's speech dissipate itself in thin air, nevertheless, as I was the only Member on this side of the House who was present during his speech, perhaps I should say something on my own behalf in reply to him.
The hon. Gentleman has made several suggestions and several charges. They were very confused. They were delivered, both just now and on earlier occasions, in a manner which seemed to combine levity with gravity. We do not know, as we seldom do know, whether the hon. Gentleman is serious or not, but I will

give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he seriously proposes to the Government that they should give in great detail their answers to these articles which have appeared under the name of Randolph Churchill.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend did not ask that at all.

Mr. Nicolson: He spoke almost entirely on that point.

Mr. Silverman: As I understood my hon. Friend, he did not suggest that the Government should debate with Mr. Randolph Churchill and give answers to what Mr. Randolph Churchill said. What my hon. Friend suggested was that the Government should appoint an official historian so that the real story could be told, or, alternatively, that they should appoint a Select Committee to which the evidence could be produced. That is a very different thing.

Mr. Nicolson: The hon. Gentleman will also recall that his hon. Friend said it was wrong for the Foreign Office spokesman to accuse Randolph Churchill of having committed certain grave inaccuracies in his account of those events without specifying what the inaccuracies were. To my mind, if the Government took up his suggestion it would involve them engaging in a form of debate—because their reply would certainly be answered—with a journalist. I cannot recall any other instance in recent history when any Government has felt that to be the right thing to do. That is my first answer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I ask on that point if he is aware that it was the Foreign Office which started this attack on Mr. Randolph Churchill by making a statement at its Press conference?

Mr. Nicolson: It is precisely in that attitude that I see evidence of the hon. Gentleman's levity. We all enjoyed his witticism at Question Time yesterday. It was a very good joke, but it exposed his motives. We all knew very well, and he intended us to know, that he was not seriously accusing the Foreign Office of grave indiscretion by attacking Randolph Churchill, because we all also know that Randolph Churchill is a person who constantly exposes himself to attack, who actually enjoys it, and who would have


regretted it very much if his articles had not created the furore which they did. That is not to Randolph Churchill's discredit.
I now come to a further suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman just now. He said that there should be a full inquiry. He confused us—at any rate he confused me—by failing to specify whether he meant an inquiry into the military operations or an inquiry into the political and diplomatic events which preceded them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Both.

Mr. Nicolson: He read out a long list of official war historians and suggested that one of them might be turned on to writing the official history of the Suez War. That may be done in time. The war histories now appearing refer to events that happened some twenty years ago, and I feel certain that one day the full history of the Suez operation will be written, as the history has been written of every operation in which British arms have ever been employed.
Perhaps the time is not yet to write that history. Following precedent, very soon after the events we had the official dispatch of the commander-in-chief responsible. General Keightley's dispatch was not a formal, empty document. It was an occasion for a renewal of political controversy. It was a very lengthy dispatch. It revealed a great deal that was not known, and I believe there is very little about the military operation to startle the hon. Member which could now be revealed by any official historian.
We all know why it was—the whole world knows—that the military side of the Suez operation was not a complete success. The main reason—it was known to the world before the operation started— was that there was no deep water port in Cyprus. There is not much more to be told. When the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East says that the failure of the operation—I will not say it was a terrible military failure—was due to shortages of arms and ammunition which could have been produced in his factories in Scotland, that is complete nonsense.

Mr. Bence: I did not say that. I referred to L.C.Ts and L.S.Ts.

Mr. Nicolson: Those are naval and military craft which are produced on the

Clyde. The reason why the operation failed was not a shortage of those craft. It was because of the distance of the bases from the point of attack. These are things which we all know. What could be added to these basic strategic facts by any military inquiry of the type the hon. Member had in mind?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If I remember rightly, the hon. Member opposed Suez. Is that right?

Mr. Nicolson: I come now to the more delicate question of the history of the political and diplomatic events which preceded the military operation. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has just reminded the House that I was an opponent of the Suez policy. I have never unsaid anything I said at that time, although I am not going to say it all over again on this occasion, but perhaps to that extent it was a good thing that I happened to be the only Conservative Member in the House, because I am able to speak with less party bias than almost any one of my colleagues. For that reason I believe that my words might carry more weight with the hon. Gentleman than those of hon. Friends of mine whom the hon. Gentleman might think were rather prejudiced in what they had to say.
At the time of the crisis two years ago many rumours were current. The newspapers of the world were full of innuendoes against the honour of individual members of the Conservative Government. The facts were debated over and over again in the House. At the conclusion of the main block of debates a book called "Secrets of Suez" was written, and published in France, by the brothers Bromberger, and in that book the most wild, fantastic and harmful allegations were made against Sir Anthony Eden personally and against many members of the present Government.
I am surprised, incidentally, if it was thought by the Opposition so necessary to investigate the details of what happened in October and November, 1956, that they should not have seized as an excuse upon the Bromberger's book which went very much further than Randolph Churchill's did some eighteen months later. Why is there this sudden renewal of interest in the events of two years ago?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Because the Foreign Office has started it.

Mr. Nicolson: If we were to hold an inquiry of the sort suggested, by definition it would be composed of hon. Members. Does the hon. Member for South Ayrshire think that a Select Committee of the House of Commons could assemble and call before it witnesses, who would presumably include the leading statesmen of the day, and, having interrogated them, come to a fair conclusion which would be the unanimous report of the Committee? Even if the Committee could do all that, do hon. Members opposite think that such a report would be accepted equally by everybody in all parts of the country? On the contrary, it would simply revive the controversy, which would do nobody any good, but would add more petrol to an already burning fire.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Member allow me, as an old Member of the House, to suggest to him that there is no fairer or more judicially minded tribunal in this country than a Select Committee of the House of Commons, doing its best with the evidence to establish the facts?

Major Sir Frank Markham: Where would the Committee get the evidence from the American side?

Mr. Nicolson: My hon. Friend has just reminded the House that this is not purely a domestic affair, and that in order to sift the truth from the untruth and to get at the facts of what happened two years ago, it would be necessary to call evidence from half a dozen other Governments, from the United States of America, from France, Israel and the Governments of the Commonwealth, because without evidence of that sort, the Select Committee could not tell for certain that it had got to the bottom of the truth.

Mr. H. Hynd: Surely the Select Committee could accept documents from British Government sources.

Mr. Nicolson: This was an international affair, and it can be sorted out only by historians, by people not concerned with and not influenced by the passions which those events aroused and still arouse, men who in the future will be able to read the documents and sift all the evidence from all sides, and thus bring a balanced, historical judgment to

bear upon those events, and, in the end, present their version of the affair for subsequent generations to read.
However, we will not have to wait all that time. Randolph Churchill has written a series of articles. It is open to anybody to answer those articles and to write other articles. For instance, M. Mollet can do so, if he so wishes, for he is now a private citizen. So can my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), who was Minister of Defence at the time of the Suez operation and who is now an ordinary back bencher. Those and any others can contribute their evidence to refute, or, if they wish, to confirm, what has been written by Randolph Churchill.
Perhaps the most important witness of all, Sir Anthony Eden, is to publish his account of what happened. It is fairly general knowledge—it has been published many times in the Press—that he is engaged upon writing his own memoirs and that the Suez chapters form a very large part of the volume which he has written first. We are told that it will be published next year. He will take into account the accusations which have been made by Randolph Churchill and others as he is in the process of writing those chapters. Then we will have another version. That is the way history is made. That is the way public opinion is formed.
When the Prime Minister said yesterday that he left it to the judgment of the nation at the General Election to decide whether we were right or wrong to do what we did two years ago he was quite right. Never, on any issue, do the public have the full evidence on which to judge. Every hon. Member knows something about practically every political event which is not known to the public at large. Exactly the same is true of the Suez operation. I did not know everything about it; I still do not know everything, by a long measure. But I felt that I knew enough to make up my mind whether what we did then was right or wrong, and I came to a personal conclusion, which I asked none of my hon. Friends to share. Very few of them did. I found myself in a tiny minority in this House and in my own constituency. But I did not ask for a public inquiry into the details of what Sir Anthony Eden said to M. Mollet on 16th October in Paris. I did not need to know this. The facts


which were published were self-evident enough, and, cumulatively, gave us enough upon which to base a sound judgment. The same is true today.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sorry that in opening his speech the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was abusing the customs of the House in raising this matter on the Adjournment. The hon. Member will be aware that since my hon. Friend had already exercised his opportunity to raise this matter at Question Time there was no further opportunity to raise it except by taking advantage of the occasion which presented itself tonight. It is not my hon. Friend who is abusing the rules of procedure, or the customs of the House; the people who are doing so are those who, having been elected as Members, visit the House as rarely as they can.
There would have been no difficulty in this matter if those who had been notified that the debate was to take place had been courteous enough to take their appointed places on the Front Bench. They have not done so. The two hours' notice which was given was in no way unreal. We had an Adjournment debate about three weeks ago when an hon. Member opposite changed the subject of the debate. He had given notice that he would raise a certain subject and, at the last moment, without the rest of the House knowing it, he changed his subject. No hon. Member opposite felt on that occasion that that hon. Member was in any way abusing the rights of back benchers or the privileges of the House.
My hon. Friend is completely justified in raising this matter, because the accusations or disclosures of Mr. Randolph Churchill have reawakened public interest in a subject about which the public has always been confused because it has never been clearly explained. It is useless for hon. Members opposite to dismiss Mr. Randolph Churchill as an irresponsible journalist. Not only is he a former Member of this House, but he is the son of a very distinguished former Prime Minister. Presumably father and son occasionally have little "conflabs" and, while no one would pretend that in

voicing the opinions that he has the distinguished journalist is giving any other opinions than his own, his family connections are such that no one can completely disregard his opinions and suggest that they do not count for anything.
The hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch said that the reason why the Suez invasion failed was that there was no deep-water port. I should have thought that the reason why it failed was that it closed the Suez Canal, the purpose of the invasion being to keep it open. It seemed to me that once they had succeeded in blocking the Canal, whatever other achievement they could have claimed credit for, they had failed dismally in their objective.
The hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch said we had no evidence. Of course we had no evidence and the public will always argue about whether we went in, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary claimed, to separate combatant forces. That has always been the reason which has been advanced. Always the claim has been put forward from the benches opposite that we went to war to prevent a war; that we went in to separate two opposing armies which had not contacted one another by some hundreds of miles.
I refer the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch to what Mr. Dulles himself was saying, not in October and November of that year, but in August. He gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington, in January. He recalled that he had left for the first London conference at two hours' notice without even taking time to pack a bag, after an urgent conference at the White House. He said there were "very strong forces" at the London conference which had believed that a solution could be found only in terms of an armed attack. These opinions had not proved "dominant" at the conference. But, Mr. Dulles added grimly, the world could have no doubt now of their reality, in view of the later conduct of Britain and France in Egypt.
In other words, three months before Israel had attacked Egypt, Mr. Dulles gained that impression at the conference of the maritime nations which was called immediately after Nasser had nationalised the Canal. He went away from that conference believing that there were certain


forces which wanted to settle this issue by force. He was not referring to Israel. Because of the subsequent events, it is obvious that the two nations to whom he was then referring were Great Britain and France.
At the secret conference of the maritime nations Mr. Dulles gave the impression that Britain and France wanted to settle this issue by force in August, long before Israel had marched. In the testimony to the Foreign Affairs Committee Mr. Dulles said:
The path to a peaceful solution could have been found if Britain and France had not invaded Egypt. At the end of October, the Security Council had unanimously adopted six principles for the future regulation of the Suez Canal. The optimism then shown by the Eisenhower Administration was an accurate portrayal of the situation as it then existed. Then, Britain and France moved in Egypt.
In view of the disclosures and opinions now being published by Mr. Randolph Churchill, it seems to me highly desirable that the British people should be told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The honour and integrity of Her Majesty's Ministers is being challenged.
What Mr. Randolph Churchill is saying, in essence, is that the country was misled and deceived. When the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch speaks about the reputation of the House, I would remind him that nothing is more damaging to that reputation than that an opinion should get abroad that Her Majesty's Ministers are not honourable, truthful, or frank. We shall never get to know, will never unfathom this mystery, this hiding and covering up, until we can have an inquiry on the lines suggested by my hon. Friends.
Who will lose anything? If Mr. Randolph Churchill's charges are wrong, pointless and untruthful, his reputation will suffer in the event of an inquiry and the character and honour of the Ministers against whom he directed his charges will be vindicated. In view of his charges, unless the Government get up and say openly, "This man is wrong, and the charges he makes are completely unjustified", and agree to the setting up of an inquiry, we must assume that silence gives consent. If they are not prepared to submit themselves and the papers at their disposal to cross-examination by

independent authority the charges will still hang over them. There will always be people who will doubt the honesty of the statesmen who represented them on that occasion and who represent them today.
Let us not minimise what happened. The country, as one of my hon. Friends has said, has spent since 1950 perhaps £10,000 million or £12,000 million, the vast proportion of which has been expended to keep Communism at bay in the world and to defend ourselves against Communist aggression. Because of suicidal decisions made during this period. Soviet Communism was given an opportunity which could never otherwise have fallen to it.
What senseless body advised the Suez Canal Company to withdraw the pilots? Nobody will ever tell me that the Suez Canal Company made that decision without considering the opinions and advice of the British and French Governments. It was a decision which the men in authority thought would inevitably result in the closing of the Canal. But these wise, all-knowing people thought that there was nobody in the world who could pilot a ship through the Suez Canal except a British or French pilot, and that if the pilots were withdrawn the Canal would close. Within 48 hours of our pilots and the French pilots being withdrawn, the Soviet pilots arrived.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They are there yet.

Mr. Fernyhough: And they are there yet.

Mr. Hughes: They will stay.

Mr. Fernyhough: And they will stay. We have spent tens of millions of pounds in trying to keep Soviet influence out of the Middle East, yet by a disastrous, suicidal, senseless decision we make it possible for the Russians to go in without any trouble, and, as my hon. Friend has just said, they are not only there but are likely to remain there and their influence is likely to grow.
These events, for which the nation is now paying the price, should be thoroughly investigated. The charges which Mr. Randolph Churchill has made should be answered, but they cannot be answered by men whom half the nation thinks are guilty. They can be answered


only by putting at the disposal of a commission all the relevant papers and all the relevant witnesses. The honour of certain Ministers is involved. If they treasure their honour, I think that they would agree with my hon. Friend's request that the Government should institute an inquiry.

9.18 p.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I had not intended to invade the debate; after all, it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that originally we were talking about petrol pumps at Frinton. There is nothing in the world in which I am less interested than the situation of petrol pumps at Frinton, but this House has remembered its old right of being entitled during an Adjournment debate to raise any question that occurs to any Member. I welcome this uprising of back bench Members in the absence of Members of both Front Benches. We have been too complacent in the past, and I welcome the re-establishment of back bench control of the House.
At the same time, I disapprove most vehemently of the argument that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put forward that a Select Committee Should be set up to go into the allegations made in Mr. Randolph Churchill's articles in the Evening Standard quite recently that impute certain errors on the part of some Ministers or former Ministers of the Government. I think that that request should be strongly resisted, not because I want to keep anything under a particular hat, but because a Select Committee simply could not establish the truth. We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) point out that a Select Committee would not be able to summon to its presence people from America, Israel, France, Egypt or Russia to give evidence.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member made this point in an intervention earlier. Nobody suggests that a Select Committee or any authority in this country is entitled to investigate and to pass judgment upon the action of any other country—America, France, Israel or anybody else. What has been suggested is that the Government of this country are responsible to the House. The suggestion is that they have been misleading us and not telling us the facts. All that is being suggested, as I under

stand it, is that there should be an officially appointed historian or a Select Committee or some other kind of tribunal which the Government could select or appoint, and that all the evidence as to the conduct of our own Government—no one else—should be placed before it and judgment arrived at.

Sir F. Markham: I welcome that intervention, but it still does not answer the question of how we are to prove or disprove charges of collusion, which have been made frequently from the other side of the House, without the evidence from those other countries.

Mr. Silverman: There are documents.

Sir F. Markham: There may not even be documents on this matter. Personal evidence may be required from people on both sides. The House cannot obtain that. It has not the power.
When it comes to the second part of the charge—that there may have been some unpreparedness of our own Forces and an inadequacy of preparation for the operation—then, as hon. Members know, the Opposition have the right to demand Parliamentary time for a discussion and to demand a White Paper in advance of it. They have made no such demand. It is no good hon. Members on an Adjournment debate saying that these things should be done by a Select Committee when they could be done in normal Parliamentary time. Why have they not done it? The only conclusion we can reach is that they do not believe their own story.
The difficulty of getting at the truth of some of these things is well known. I have had full experience of this in writing official biographies, and I know that even 40 years after events still further evidence is coming forward which leads one to modify the views which one reached at the time. We all know how in recent years the books written by American generals about the last World War and those written by our own generals tend to disagree on vital points of who won which battle and by how much and where.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the House has the divine power of being able to see the truth by a Select Committee when the evidence will probably not be


available in our lifetime. It is preposterous. As for the question of the preparedness of our own Services, the answer is clear and obvious; the Opposition could have taken formal Parliamentary time and asked for a White Paper and the Government would have been bound to produce it.
May I come to my own part in the Suez events, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch stated his opinion very honourably. My own opinion is known to the House. It was in favour of the Government. This was so without knowing the full facts. How do we take decisions on these grave issues when we not only do not know the full facts but realise that they will probably not be known in our generation? This is a most awful question which we as hon. Members have to pose for ourselves. We have to make judgments on matters of great moral and historical value when we know that the full facts will not be available to us or possibly even to the historians for a generation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Sir F. Markham: I prefer not to give way just now.
In such matters we have to act on faith, and my faith at that time was placed in the honour of Sir Anthony Eden. I have seen no cause in the years which have passed to diminish by one jot or iota my very profound admiration for that man. If he took a wrong decision at the time, it may be that the information was not available to him. But I took my decision on faith, with the best information which was available to me. It was not, of course, complete information, and I doubt whether we shall have all the information for a very long time.
On the question of military preparedness, all the keys are in your pocket; you can take them out and start the operation next week if you wish to do so. You are not doing so. Why not?

Mr. Silverman: We have asked the questions.

Sir F. Markham: After holding back for two years. Why have you taken two years?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Sir F. Markham: There is nothing I love better than addressing you personally, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure.
May I turn to quite another point. A week before the Suez incident brake out I was in Israel. Hon. Members may recall that I have had quite a long experience in the Army—eleven or twelve years—and a great part of that time I spent on the staff. When anyone has had that length of experience in the Army it is very easy to see whether any war preparations are afoot. May I point out, for the information of the House, that during the time I was in Israel I was accompanied by an hon. Member from the benches opposite, Mr. Granville West, now translated to a higher but I doubt a happier sphere.
During the time that Mr. West and I were in Israel, we saw the movement of not a single military lorry, tank, or column of men which would give rise to the slightest suspicion of preparations for war. It is perfectly true that on the Jordan side there were watch posts and sporadic firing, but on the Egyptian side there was no activity whatsoever. There was not even the movement of reconnaissance parties. That has been borne out in all events of the time.
Hon. Members opposite think that the Israeli attack was prepared possibly six months, or at least six weeks, before it took place. If so, all I can say is that I met some of the Israeli generals at the time, and even these generals were not aware of what was about to happen. I believe that it was one of those events which we so often see in politics here— a sudden boiling over of the pot and a sudden concatination of circumstances which no one could control.
I believe Sir Anthony Eden when he said in the House that there was no collusion between Britain and Israel. I had the opportunities of seeing on the Israel side whether there were preparations for this operation or not. I saw nothing of the kind.
These are excitable things to talk about and the Opposition think that they have a point when a charge of bad faith is made against Conservative Ministers. I say to them: Think again; look at your own record in 1956 and be ashamed of it!

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I should not have taken part in this debate except for the very remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson). I hope that he will not think that I am in the least seeking to be patronising in any way when I say that most of us on this side of the House have a very great respect for him. I again apologise for any apparent atmosphere of patronage that may creep in, but I want to say this in view of what I am going to say next?
We have that respect for the hon. Gentleman because we have a great respect for his intelligence, for his independence and, most of all, for his integrity. He has recently written a book which is of great interest to all hon. Members of the House, irrespective of any party affiliations, and of interest to all Members of Parliament who are interested in this great historical institution of ours and in the ways of making it most effective, most useful and a really proper instrument of the working of representative democracy. It is for those reasons that I heard his speech with the utmost astonishment.
What is the great difficulty that private back benchers have in making themselves as effective as they would wish to be in debates of the House of Commons? Is it not this? The increasing complexity of our affairs and the crowding in at an accelerating pace of a number of things with which the House of Commons is compelled to deal means that more and more the time of the House is taken up by the Government of the day and that the exceptions, such as they are, are taken up more and more by the official Opposition.
Debates in our House become more and more a kind of official tournament, with the lists set in advance, with everybody knowing in advance what everybody else will say, and with, at the end, a vote in the Division Lobby the result of which every single one of us can forecast before ever the Division bells ring. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as any Member of the House.
What is our remedy? We cannot interfere, we do not want to interfere, with the effective conduct of government. All we can do is to take such opportunities as the accident of the Order

Paper may present us with from time to time for making our own voices heard on matters on which we feel strongly. One of the most important of those occasions is precisely debate on the Adjournment, when, so long as one deals with matters which do not require legislation, one can raise any matter under the sun that seems to one to be important for the House of Commons to debate.
Of course, we get the most beneficial results of such debates if we have the responsible Minister sitting on the Government Front Bench ready to listen to the debate, ready to intervene, ready, at the end, to answer it. That is why we devised this convention. My hon. Friend was perfectly right, in my opinion, when he said it was no more than that, but, nevertheless, it is a most useful one, that if we wish to have a debate of that kind and to get the best and most fruitful result out of it, one should give adequate notice of the debate to the Minister concerned, because then he can come and answer it.
But one cannot always give very long notice. When one can one gives it. A predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, assented to the device, the totally new procedure compared with what existed before the war. We never used to have to sign a book, or to take part in a ballot, or specify the subject. As long as the Adjournment time had come and one caught Mr. Speaker's eye one took one's own chance whether one got an answer from the Minister or not.
I am not suggesting that that procedure could continue, because since the end of the war there have been and there still are today very many more back benchers wishing to take advantage of these Adjournment debates than there ever used to be, and, therefore, there is competition between them and the competition has to be settled in some way; and I know of no fairer or more reasonable way of settling the competition than the one Mr. Speaker then devised and which we have followed since.
But it is not exhaustive. It is not conclusive. What does the hon. Member suggest? If, as on an occasion of this kind, the ordinary business of the day comes to an end at about 6.30 or 6.40, is he suggesting that he and I, who are both, as back benchers, anxious to make


our own contributions, should go home, or go to the pictures, or go to the theatre, because the Government have no more business for us? Would not that be a real dereliction of our public duty as the hon. Member and I understand it?

Mr. N. Nicolson: I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is making rather too much of this. He knows very well that I was referring, in my opening remarks, to the atmosphere of the House, which has changed during the last one and half hours into something rather more worthy of the House. I should say that the hon. Member's own speech contributes to that atmosphere at the moment. But I do not think that it can do any good to the reputation of the House if we have a string of kaleidoscopic, unconnected, ill-thought-out, ill-digested and unheard speeches.

Mr. Silverman: I am quite prepared to agree, and I think that the hon. Member, on reflection, perhaps tomorrow morning, must come to the same opinion that the opening passages of the speech to which I refer were themselves ill-considered and ill-conceived.
That is what I am trying to persuade him to think in the speech that I am making now. He will remember that he used the words, "abuse of the processes of the House", and, when he was challenged on that, on the possible ground that it might be a reflection on the Chair, he withdrew the word "abuse" and substituted the word "improper". Does the hon. Member now, after all that has taken place, think that what my hon. Friends were doing was an abuse of the House, or was improper?

Mr. Nicolson: I should like to correct the hon. Member. I said that it was an abuse of the convention or custom of the House. I never suggested that it was an abuse of the rules of order.

Mr. Silverman: I say that it is neither an abuse of anything nor in any way improper, whether we consider Standing Orders or conventions. I am the more astonished that after an opportunity for reflection the hon. Member does not now candidly admit that what he said was quite wrong and in diametric conflict with the very wise principles and ideas to advocate which he has written a most interesting book.
What have my hon. Friends been doing? They have used the opportunity of there being unexpectedly three or three and a half hours free from official Opposition questions, free from Government questions, available to any one of us to raise questions that he may never again, certainly in this Parliament, have an opportunity of raising. Is that an abuse? Is that improper? Would it not have been an abuse or improper if my hon. Friends had not done it rather than that they have?
The hon. Member has himself made a most distinguished contribution to the debate. I do not agree with it altogether. I am glad to see that he still remains of the same opinion on the Suez operation that he expressed so courageously at the time, and I do not know why he found it necessary to make the kind of speech he did. But perhaps I do. Up to that moment he was the sole occupant of the benches opposite and he felt it his duty, as a loyal member of his party, even though he is from time to time in dissent from its majority, as I am myself from mine from time to time.
I would guess, if it were not an impertinence to try to guess, that his real motive was that this side of the House, attacking the Government in speech after speech, should not get away with it and that a voice should be raised on that side. The hon. Member did that most effectively. He made the very best of what he knows himself to be a very bad case. Why not? Was that an abuse? Was his speech improper? Or does he think that it is an abuse and improper for my hon. Friends to attack the Government but perfectly proper for hon. Members opposite to defend them, even when they do not mean what they say?
It will not do. If one is to talk, as the hon. Member did, about the prestige of the House, then for heaven's sake let any private Member take every opportunity that may present itself, with or without notice as the case may be. Let him give all the notice he can, but do not let the difficulty of giving notice, if it occurs, or any other matter ever prevent or intimidate any Member, on either side, from using such opportunity as the procedure may make available to raise any question he likes and say anything that he thinks fit.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I was interested in the observations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), because it seems to me important that, when there is time in which Members can raise matters of foreign affairs, colonial affairs or concerning their constituencies they should take the Floor of the House and do so. Are Members of the House of Commons suggesting that the Government are not able to read HANSARD in the morning, or that we are not able to follow up any speech we make here tonight about our constituents, about our forces serving abroad, because there is not a Minister of the Government sitting on that Front Bench? I understand that that point has been put in the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am glad to hear that nobody, in fact, has put that point.
So far as I am concerned, I speak entirely as a House of Commons man on an occasion like this, and when I heard that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was speaking I was very interested in what was going on. I made further inquiries about exactly what was happening, and I understand that the hon. Member was trying again to raise the whole terrible and ghastly issue of the Suez crisis. I simply cannot at this stage today honestly believe as a back bench Member that the majority of our countrymen, when they see already the Soviet intervention in the Middle East and our friends withering, will be interested in the re-hashing-up of some past events.
I do not expect hon. Members opposite to alter their opinions, and I am sure that hon. Members on that side of the House do not expect people like myself to alter what I said at the time. Indeed, I would withdraw no word of what I said on 1st November, 1956. I respect the opinions of others who choose to differ. I may still be wrong and they may still be right; but that does not at the moment concern either myself as a hack bencher or the country. What we really must look to is the future, and I am now definitely going to raise, whether I have given notice or not, the problem of British businessmen who over the years have built up British assets in Egypt and, during the time of that Suez calamity and up to the present, have

lost their homes, their livelihoods and their future.
A very important debate indeed, if there are important debates in another place, took place on 12th November, in which a great number of those who took part were very much worried whether we are going to do honour and justice to the people whom, we said at the time, we were setting out to protect. We said we were definitely going to protect their interests. Now, have their interests been protected? Let us not be churlish about the matter, for the Government have given a great deal of help to the Committee looking after those who are facing unfortunate circumstances because they were forced to leave Egypt. I would not he ungrateful for the work that Committee is doing, with Government help, but let us have regard to the passage of time and examine the facts as they are and see what has happened.
The majority of these businessmen are not very wealthy men. The big companies, like I.C.I., Shell, Mitchell Cotts or any other of the big companies, can write off their losses in that part of the world, but can the ordinary British subject, who has been following his grandfather and father in business. recover his assets in Egypt? I doubt it very much.
Let us consider what happened. These businessmen, who each owned about £15,000 or £25,000 of capital in that country, automatically had to leave, and when they left the country they left their money. Representations were made on what they should do, and they discussed the matter with the British Egyptian Chamber of Commerce here. They were told, "If you want to go back and recover your capital assets, as far as we are concerned go back and try to recover them, but it would be wiser if you did not go back and recover those assets because you might prejudice the hand of Her Majesty's Government in negotiating with the Egyptian Government."
That was a reasonable request to make to businessmen. Well, they waited a long time and their assets were sequestered. When assets are sequestered the company is managed by one of the Egyptian sequestrators, but of course wages must still be paid. The company offices are kept open but no business comes in. Where today is the capital of many of our loyal people


who had their life savings and their life work in Egypt? I do not think many of them will be able to recover those assets. So what is the position today? I gather they will be told, "Return to Egypt and fight your case in the open law courts and get back whatever you can." Hon. Members really must think carefully and decide how much they think any British businessman can recover of his capital in Egypt after two years.
What is the solution? What should we recommend? We should recommend Her Majesty's Government to appoint a commission of arbitration and settlement so that these people can go to the commission to settle their claims. Out of what funds would the commission pay the claims? At present in this country there are £98 million of Egyptian assets blocked. I suggest that if the Government have promised to give every consideration and to do justice to these businessmen their claims should be met out of those blocked assets which the Government at present control. If the Government do not do this, is it really fair and right and just to ask these men to return to Egypt and fight for their assets in open court? I do not think this is the right way to tackle the problem.
Let us realise what we own in Egypt. For over 150 years we have given our time, our money, our administrators to build Egypt as she is today. The Egyptians know it, and we know it. If one asks any honest Egyptian he will admit that they are in their present position today thanks to our great British business companies and British administrators, who have given their livelihood to support them and to bring them forward to nationhood.
I had a discussion only two days ago with one of the directors of an African tobacco company. He as a businessman estimates that Britain owns in Egypt £100 million sterling. That is a lot of money. What is happening to it all? How are we to recover it? What has happened to the talks in Rome? Never a word is said about the negotiations which have been going on between the British and Egyptian Governments. What is it that is frustrating this agreement?

Mr. S. Silverman: A guilt complex.

Mr. Yates: I respect the hon. Member's feelings about this, but I would not put it like that at the moment.
Let us consider the matter carefully. The United States has already come to an agreement with Egypt, because it was sensible and logical to do so. France, a realist, interested in real politics, has arranged to do so. Why are we unable to come to an agreement with the Egyptian Government? Do we want to try to score the final point? Is that what is causing the delay? Do we want two years later to try to get one up?
Surely it would be much wiser to be realistic and say, "We will not go on any further in this ridiculous wrangle with you. We may have made mistakes, and you have made mistakes; but how, without diplomatic and business relations with Egypt, are we to combat the present activities of other interests in the Middle East who are working against us?"
How do we conduct foreign policy without having diplomatic relations with the leading country in the Arab world? How is it possible to do such a thing? We begin to worry because things are not going there as we would like them to. We have no diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. The Gracious Speech said that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to work with the United Nations and other Middle East countries and resolve their problems to make a better international atmosphere. How can this be done if we do not open diplomatic relations with the leading Arab country, which is the United Arab Republic?
So I do not in any way apologise at exercising my right as a back bencher and expressing these feelings. They are not just my feelings. They are the feelings of about a hundred of our businessmen and almost a million of our people who know anything about the Middle East or the Orient.
Let us analyse what is going on in Cairo at the moment. There is the meeting of the Afro-Asian Assembly; all the younger nations from the Middle East and from African Asia are sitting down together discussing their great futures in Africa and in Asia. Where are we? We are not there. The Soviet Union is there and other countries are there, but we are not. I suppose that when he said that he considered the Middle East and the Far East the most important places in the


world Vice-President Nixon was speaking with the authority of the United States Government. If there is a conference of Afro-Asian nations in Cairo, one would have thought that Britain should be there as well. How long are we to leave this great field open, and how long are we to wait until we can take up diplomatic relations with a vitally important area of the world?
Tonight, in a Committee Room upstairs, with others I talked to students from the Middle East. They made three simple points. They asked when Britain would show her old initiative and realign her policy in the Middle East. They asked when would she recognise the facts of Middle Eastern policy today and appreciate that Arab nationalism was a great and vital counter, and when we would recognise the present ruler of Egypt and Syria. They asked, thirdly, who would supply the technical equipment and schools in the Middle East in the years to come. They asked whether those schools would be British or Soviet schools. The choice is as simple as that.
The general political situation in the Middle East can be summed up easily. The majority of Afro-Asian nations have based their foreign policies on absolute neutrality. Is there anything wrong with those people not wanting to be drawn into the conflicts of the great Powers? Is there something morally wrong with people wanting to be absolutely neutral in that part of the world, or is it impossible? If they want to be neutral, is it necessary for us to make them absolutely hostile?
I have spoken in the House about the Middle East many times. I intend to continue to speak about the Middle East so long as I remain a Member of the House. I am convinced that if Britain can take the political initiative in that part of the world, many of the people there will be happier for it and many people in our country will applaud the decision to make a completely fresh start. I have said that many times, but nobody has been very interested to hear me. I intend to continue to say it until such time as they care to hear me.

PRESTWICK AIRPORT

9.58 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I want to exercise my right as a Member of the House to raise a matter of the utmost concern to myself, to many local authorities in Scotland, to many people who are expert in the running of airways throughout the United Kingdom, and to hundreds of people who were affected by our airway services during last week; people who came to this country from all over the world and who were unable to return to their homelands from London Airport.
I raise the matter also because of an answer which was given to me this afternoon by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation because of an article in a Scottish newspaper, which I have in my hand, and because, in company with another hon. Member, I was at Euston Station last weekend watching a train which was packed from the guards van to the engine with 300 or 400 passengers bound for Prestwick. Their aircraft had been unable to take off from London Airport.
That evening the British Broadcasting Corporation told the world that London was fogbound and could not receive or send out any planes. That was a great advertisement for us from the voice of Britain. It failed to tell the world that while London had been rendered useless Prestwick was still functioning and was sending out and receiving planes from all over the world. I have written to Sir Ian Jacobs protesting on behalf of many Scottish people who have been told that it is had business that we should advertise that at certain periods we are unable to handle aircraft at London, although it is known, at least to some of us —

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.

Mr. Rankin: It is known to some of us that when—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order Is not the Question now put to the House?

Mr. Speaker: At Ten o'clock the original Question for the Adjournment


lapses and does not exist. There is then no Question for me to put. There has to be a Question before the House, and the Adjournment has to be moved again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bryan.]

Mr. Rankin: While London, according to the B.B.C., was incapable of handling aircraft, Prestwick was still taking them from wherever they cared to come.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the staff at Prestwick had to deal with an almost unparalleled emergency and stuck to their jobs for thirtysix hours? Do not they deserve the thanks of this House for that?

Mr. Rankin: I was coming to that point. As a result of that diversion of aircraft Prestwick faced a tremendous task. And it is compelled to face that task because the Government are not spending sufficient money in its development.
I have here a copy of the front page of the Evening Citizen for Friday, 5th December—the evening to which I refer. The headline, in reference to the fact that fog had closed London Airport, is, "Prestwick takes 'em". On the front page is a picture of giant airliners which have been diverted to Prestwick, lined up on the runway. There are four Britannias and a Boeing 707 jet aircraft. Prestwick had to call up members of its staff who had left their jobs and had finished for the night and had been enjoying their leisure. They returned willingly to work in order to see that this great service went on without interruption. While London was fogbound Prestwick basked in bright wintry sunshine. The airline officials there wiped their brows, smiled and said, "Well, we have done it again." Surely that is a great tribute to this United Kingdom airport.
Members often think that this is a Scottish problem, but last week, as has been demonstrated time and time again in the winter months, when a pall of fog covered not only the North of England but the whole of the South of England and part of the Midlands—Manchester

was out of service, as were the other airports in the South of England—Prestwick continued to function and to handle traffic.
This is important in relation to what we have been talking about tonight, because the air is the great medium of speedy transport today, especially for statesmen. If they are to deal with the events which have been so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) they must move speedily. One of our Governors-General—Lord Alexander— was affected by this diversion. He was coming to London, but he could only get here via Prestwick. It is an important point. We should see that we have at least one airport in the United Kingdom which is properly equipped to handle an emergency, which unfortunately for us occurs frequently.
What are we doing? Today I asked the Minister to tell me what sum had been spent on the development of aerodromes administered by his Department in Scotland and England, respectively. He told me that the sum expended on the development of Scottish airports was £3·7 million and on English airports £34·5 million. We used to operate a formula called the Goschen formula, which the present Government have rejected. But were that formula applied to this expenditure it would be seen that Scotland is not getting a fair share. I do not object to £34·5 million being spent on English airports, but in view of the importance of Prestwick to the United Kingdom, I say that we are spending far too little on developing that airport. Prestwick does not get the £3·7 million; that is the sum spent on all the airports in Scotland, of which Prestwick will get only £2·2 million. For weeks now I have been urging that such a sum is far too small, and once again the climate of this country has proved the truth of my words.
As we viewed those passengers leaving Euston last Thursday night, I wondered what happened to them when they got to Prestwick. Surely we should think of the comfort of those people who represented trade for this country, who were bringing foreign currency—mostly dollars —which we need. What do we do with them when they get to Prestwick? The hotel accommodation there is completely


inadequate. It is not the type of accommodation we should be providing for visitors to this country. We want modern hotel accommodation at Prestwick, and we have not got it. The present accommodation is quite inadequate.
I asked the Minister whether any decision had been reached by the Government about accommodation to be provided in the proposed new hotel at Prestwick Airport and whether he had any idea of the cost. He said he recognised that a hotel could be an attractive feature of the new terminal area and the possibility of providing one was being examined. When shall we get a decision on this matter? When shall we know what will be the size of the hotel and whether it will be capable of accommodating traffic which has at times to be diverted to Prestwick from London Airport? These are urgent matters, and by this time the Government should have got beyond the stage of mere examination and should have come to a decision.
I urge upon the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in absentia that he devote his mind to this problem. We know that the runway to receive these aircraft is now secure. But something as important as the runway is at stake. We look to a great and increasing tourist traffic for this country. If Scotland secures that traffic, it expects to handle about £100 million of it in the near future. if we invite those visitors we must give them quick transport. The air is the new medium of bringing people to this country. When we can secure that, we must then look for the accommodation, especially in a situation like that which happened last week at London Airport.
I hope that my words—I will try to see to this personally—will go to the Minister's ears and that in due course we shall find not merely an examination of what should be done at Prestwick but a decision on what the Government propose to do to keep this great, United Kingdom airport in line with the times in which we live.

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (DILUTEES)

10.12 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: When I came into the Chamber I thought we were talking about the Middle East, a subject in which I am extremely interested. I have had many letters about it. A lot of newspapers in Scotland, as well as Scotsmen, have been asking me recently for my views on the Middle East. I thought I would get up and tell the House how the refugees, which the newspapers did not mention in their articles, ought to be looked after.
For years we have been giving refugees a lot of money for doing nothing except read. With more and more refugees every year coming out of the Middle East it is clear that if only we stopped paying this money they would solve their own problem and find a way of earning their own living. While they are paid to do nothing they will go on doing it. I will try to connect our Middle East problem with Scotland, but I would say, first, to the Government and to the Scottish newspapers who write to me on this subject, that if they would like me to write an article and will pay me sufficiently I will tell them how to solve that problem.
Prestwick must be one of the world's worst airports. As was described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), it has one hotel and nothing else.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member has joined the debate very late. He must not misrepresent what I was saying, which was that the amount of money devoted to the expansion of Prestwick is not in keeping with its importance.

Brigadier Clarke: I do not deny it. All I am saying is that instead of spending that money on Prestwick, which the hon. Gentleman suggested is not all that "hot" in regard to hotel accommodation, and would not attract a single tourist, Portsmouth should be considered. There we have an excellent airfield and beautiful hotels. We share the temperature and climate that the hon. Member has in Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Brigadier Clarke: You have had a long time; let me have my go. The South of


England is quite as good as Scotland. We have the hotel and the airport; let us have a service that goes with it.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Brigadier Clarke: You have had your bit. My constituents will like this. As to a modern airport, we cannot "ruddy well" get it, but we might be able to get an airport between the two of us.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Brigadier Clarke: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I withdraw whatever I ought not to have said. So long as we can both have an airport, you and I will both be happy.
That is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about dilutees at Portsmouth. I have been with the First Lord tonight and the Civil Lord. At some period during the war we allowed dilutees to go into Portsmouth Dockyard and they were allowed to work. They were unskilled or semi-skilled naval ex-Service men who had a right to earn a living. The Admiralty agreed that if they served for seven years they would then be considered as tradesmen and allowed to go on earning their living as tradesmen. Because of the recent recession and closing of the dockyards, these men now find themselves without a job.
The trade unions are saying—and I hit them very hard for this—that if there is one trained man in Portsmouth without a job the dilutees must go. There are disabled ex-Service men in Portsmouth dockyard who are unable to earn their living because of a trade union agreement with the Admiralty. These agreements were made at a time when, no doubt, the Admiralty thought that it would never have to honour them, but through closing the dockyards Service men in Portsmouth, excellent types, are now being thrown out of work because of an agreement made during the war, which I think ought not to have been made.
Through that agreement, men will lose their jobs and someone from outside Portsmouth will take their place. If that is what trade unions stand for, I am not surprised that under 40 per cent. of the people in Portsmouth Dockyard belong to them. If that sort of thing continues, I do not think that even 40 per cent. will belong to the trade unions in future.
I am sorry that there is not a Minister present to answer all the questions which have been raised about Russia and Siberia. Perhaps the Ministers will read tomorrow what has been said and perhaps the First Lord, the Civil Lord and others will realise that they cannot treat ex-Service men in this off-hand way and throw them out merely to save a trade union.

ROCKET BASES

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Most of this excellent and unanticipated debate has dealt with the war in Egypt. The Suez war was a shameful and disastrous business. I believe that when the General Election comes the Government will have to pay for it.
I want to speak about something which is even more important than an election, namely, whether our children will grow up to live happy, healthy and useful lives or whether they will finish up as part of a radioactive cinder heap. I want to deal, in particular, with the events which happened last weekend in Norfolk. I admit that I was opposed at the outset to the demonstration which took place at North Pickenham, and I will say why.
The guilty men are not the armament workers or building workers engaged on building missile bases. They are pawns in the game. Just like a journalist working for a newspaper whose policy he does not believe in, so these men are working for their bread and butter on jobs which many of them detest. I believe that the guilty men are Her Majesty's Ministers. The Government are responsible for deciding on the policy to build missile bases in this country, not the building workers.
My view, which I put to Pat Arrowsmith and other people engaged in this demonstration, was that it would divert attention from the really guilty men, the Government, and tend to lay the blame on the armament workers. I am not now sure that I was right. I believe that those people who took part in that demonstration this weekend did an extremely valuable service. They have done more to draw the attention of the people of the country to the fact that we are building these missile bases in our extremely vulnerable land than


any of us sitting on either side of the House.
I also feel that the scenes which were shown very clearly on television— whether one agrees with the demonstrators or not—have aroused very considerable admiration for their courage and conviction.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that they strongly deny the accusation by the Secretary of State for Air that they were violent?

Mr. Allaun: I certainly agree with that because, knowing these people personally, I know that they are mostly attracted by the methods of Gandhi and of non-violence and would be the last people to use violence themselves. I believe that sympathy has been drawn to them, however right or wrong we may think their acts, because of their "guts "; they were prepared to sleep out on such a night as that and to be dragged through the mud for their ideals. They have attracted sympathy for the facts that they did not resort to violence under any circumstances and that they have stated that they intend to stage a similar demonstration on 20th December.
As I understand, the object of this demonstration is to draw attention to the fact that we are building missile bases in this densely populated country of ours. I remind the House that it is the official policy of the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress that we should press for the discontinuance of the building of missile sites in Britain until summit talks have taken place. As far as I know, that remains the official policy of this side of the House.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the hon. Member tell me what good it would be building missile sites after the assault had taken place? Surely it is the policy of the Labour Party to retain the hydrogen bomb. After all, they started it. If he gives all this credit to these people who were trying to stop this country from being defended, can he suggest any other way in which we could defend our country?

Mr. Allaun: The main answer to the hon. and gallant Member is that it is precisely because we are building missile bases here, and because we have here

the air bases from which British and American H-bombers may launch their bombs on another country, that we ourselves are in danger. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member this question: can he deny that if we use these bases to launch missiles from any part of this country, it is perfectly obvious that within a matter of hours, if not minutes, we shall get them back?

Brigadier Clarke: May I ask the hon. Member this: I am an ex-Army heavyweight boxer. Would he hit me if he thought I would hit him back? The answer is that he probably would not hit me first.

Mr. Allaun: I remind the House that the Government's original intention as declared was to build these missile bases in Scotland. That decision was dropped. I wonder why? In my view it was because the building trade workers in Aberdeen and branches of the plumbers' trade union and other key building trade union branches declared the job to be "black". The job was exceedingly unpopular there—so much so that the Government retreated to East Anglia. I should be glad if the same thing happened in East Anglia and every other part of the country. As we have been told by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) before today, the building of atom bomb bases here—at that time the Government were not building the missile bases—makes our country extremely vulnerable.
Who controls these missile bases? We were told some time ago that this was a matter of joint consultation between the American and British Governments. It is perfectly clear to my mind, and, I think, to the mind of every intelligent Member, that there will be no time to consult this House. There will be no time to consult the members of the British Cabinet. They will not even have time to jump into their taxis. The decision will be taken by one man, and he will be the commander in the field.
My authority for saying that is Mr. John Foster Dulles who, speaking on 19th December, said that the decision to launch the bomb must be taken by the commander in the field, who in this case would be the American commander in the field. It is nonsense to say that there would be consultation between the Governments. All it means is that there


would be consultation in advance between the American and British Governments as to what circumstances would justify the launching of the rocket, but the last decision would be taken by one man. Personally, I have very little trust in decisions by such means, and I have very little faith in decisions on matters which may lead to the death of everyone in this country being placed in the hands of any one individual.
The Minister for Defence said in his White Paper for 1957 that in the nuclear age there is no adequate means of defending our country against attack. Later, he told us, speaking in Australia, that he would not bother to defend us but would concentrate on trying to defend the airstrips from which our planes would depart.
We have reached the third stage. Supposing we are blotted out before we had a chance to get our bombers off the ground or launch our missiles; we shall

no longer be able to retaliate. At this moment, lunatic as it seems, scientists are discussing how to launch H-bombs when we have been blotted out of existence— launching them possibly by heat or radioactivity from bombs already launched. They are discussing how to launch our bombs so that when we are dead it will still be possible to wipe out other countries. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) apparently thinks that it is a jolly good show. I think it is the higher lunacy, and the sooner this lunacy is ended the sooner we shall have the prospect of our children growing up to manhood and womanhood. I am quite sure that the sooner our country shows true greatness in saying that we are contracting out of this policy and ceasing to build these rocket bases, as my party has said, the sooner will the world heave a sigh of relief.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.